Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Bill,

Westminster City Council (Cleveland Street Infirmary) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

RED CROSS MOVEMENT.

Sir EDWIN STOCKTON: 1
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government possesses any information to show that the Soviet Government either accepts and acts on the principles of the Red Cross movement or the humane treatment of stranded or derelict sailors; and, if so, whether the instances of deviation from this policy.are on record?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The Soviet Russian Red Cross adheres to the International Red Cross Association and may therefore be taken to accept the principles of the Red Cross movement. The treatment of stranded or derelict sailors is not, so far as I am aware, governed by any international instrument. Regulations were issued in October, 1921, by the Soviet authorities containing a clause as to the repatriation of foreign seamen, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. I have no knowledge of any deliberate deviation from generally accepted principles.

MRS. MARGUERITE HARRISON.

Mr. MIDDLETON: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has called the attention of the United States Government to the circumstance that Mrs. Marguerite Harrison, when arrested as an American spy in April, 1920, in Moscow, secured her release by becoming a Soviet spy and was rearrested for giving false information in that capacity; and whether His Majesty's Government has drawn the attention of the United States Government to Mrs. Stan Harding' sclaim for redress for the injuries caused her by Mrs. Harrison's false information?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MIDDLETON: Has the hon. Gentleman reason to believe that the United States Government is protecting this lady, knowing that she was an informer and acting as their agent at the time she was arrested?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir. I have no information to that effect.

Major Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does the hon. Gentleman accept this allegation against a well known American journalist, Mrs. Marguerite Harrison; can he say if she was employed as a Soviet spy as suggested in the question; and if, in fact, she was so employed, will any claim for compensation be made against the United States Government.

Mr. McNEILL: I express no opinion one way or the other.

CATHOLIC ECCLESIASTICS (DEATH SENTENCES).

The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. BRIANT:

8. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has made any representations to the Government of Russia with regard to the imprisonment and trial of the Archbishop of Petrograd and many priests, so as to secure that they shall be adequately defended at their trial?

Mr. BRIANT: I put down this question some days ago and answers on the subject were given in the House yesterday. May I be allowed to ask if the hon. Gentleman has any further information as to
the possible prevention of this horrible crime which is meditated on the Archbishop?

Mr. McNEILL: I am sorry that I have no further information beyond what I gave yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

BRITISH AREA.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission has decided to set up special military courts in the British occupied area; to prohibit movement from that area to unoccupied Germany by night; and whether the British Government representative has agreed to these measures?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the Rhineland High Commission have prohibited movement by night save by railway between unoccupied Germany and the territory under Article 428 of the Treaty of Versailles. His Majesty's High Commissioner felt himself unable to concur in this decision without referring home for instructions, and the matter is now under consideration.

Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say if these orders are not to be operative until His Majesty's High Commissioner has given his consent?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say that.

BRITISH POLICY.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to consider the possibility of an arrangement to provide for France and Belgium continuing to occupy the Ruhr provinces until such time as the devastated regions of Belgium and Northern France shall have been fully restored?

Mr. McNEILL: The policy of His Majesty's Government towards the occupation of the Ruhr was clearly stated at the close of the Paris Conference in January last, the papers respecting which have been laid before the House. I see no reason at present to modify that policy.

CANADA AND UNITED STATES(FISHERY TREATY).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Canada has entered into a fishery treaty with the United States of America; whether Great Britain is a signatory to such treaty; and whether it has been ratified by the United States?

Mr. McNEILL: The treaty is between the King and the United States, and was signed under full powers given by His Majesty. It has not yet been ratified by the United States.

SLAVE TRADE.

Mr. LINFIELD: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of Sate for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the treaties upon the slave trade, dated 1842, 1862, and 1863, made between this country and the United States of America, regarding the slave trade on the high seas, were denounced last year upon the initiative of His Majesty's Government, and in view of the admitted recrudescence of slavery in certain parts of the world, other treaties will be substituted for them before the denunciation takes effect in April next?

Mr. McNEILL: It is not the case that there has been any recrudescence of the slave trade on the high seas. The answer to the question is in the negative.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that there has been a recrudescence of slavery?

Mr. McNEILL: I have not seen any statement given in those terms.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the slave trade treaties between Great Britain and the Governments of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Hayti, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden were denounced upon the initiative of His Majesty's Government; if so, for what reasons; and whether, before effect is given to these denunciations, it is proposed to substitute other anti-slavery treaties?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government denounced the treaties in accordance
with their general policy of abolishing all obsolete instruments, the state of affairs which they were designed to meet no longer existing since slave trading has happily been long extinct so far as the signatories to the treaties are concerned. There is no occasion therefore to replace the treaties by similar ones.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.

Sir HENRYCRAIK: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the article appearing in the "Nation and Athenæum," of 3rd March, purporting to be the draft of an official note addressed to the French Ambassador in February last; whether he can state if the document is authentic; and whether, if it is not, he proposes to take any action in the matter and to prevent the publication of such things in future?

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that this question purports to be a, quotation from the Press? Is it not a fact that questions are not to be used for the purpose of verifying or otherwise, statements in the Press?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Not at all It is perfectly wrong.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see any quotations here.

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as to the second part, the article bears its character upon its face, namely, that it is obviously a fabricated document of a would-be facetious nature. As to the third part, it is not in the power of His Majesty's Government to prevent such publication. It is only possible to rely upon the good sense of editors to refrain from publishing papers under a guise which, as is evident from the question of the hon. Member, as well as from the false impression which in this case has been created in the Press of foreign countries, is Fable to lead to embarrassing misunderstanding and therefore to be deprecated.

TURKISH ARMENIANS.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs if he is aware that Ottoman subjects of Armenian race who for reasons of health or business, or through fear of massacre, left Constantinople with passports issued by the Allied authorities are now deprived of the right to return to Constantinople; that the property of such Armenians is being confiscated and sold by the Turkish authorities as abandoned property; will he state what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to obtain redress in such cases; and whether, in the proposed Treaty of Peace with Turkey, he will support the inclusion of a definite stipulation assuring Turkish Armenians abroad of the free enjoyment of their property in Turkey, and of the right to obtain passports and other necessary official documents from Turkish consulates?

Mr. McNEILL: With regard to the first three parts of the question, reports to this effect have just reached His Majesty's Government, and His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople is being consulted on the subject. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the minorities section of the Lausanne Draft Treaty and to the draft declaration regarding an amnesty, in the Blue Book on the Lausanne Conference. From these documents he will see the very considerable guarantees which His Majesty's Government secured at Lausanne for the Armenians. No material modification of the agreement reached on these points has been proposed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

WATER-CONTAINING BULGES.

Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that Mr. J. M. Campbell laid before the Admiralty in 1891 his original and patentable proposals for the protection of ships from mines and torpedoes, and that he was then persuaded not to publish by patenting, or otherwise, his process, but to sign an agreement that he would accept the amount awarded to him by Parliament, and that these water-containing bulges, which were the design he submitted, have been used with great success on His Majesty's ships, he wilt say what payment the Admiralty has made to Mr. Campbell or proposes to make?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): The bulges fitted to His Majesty's ships are the result of experiments carried out by the Admiralty prior to the War and the design adopted does not embody Mr. Campbell's proposals. His claim has been thoroughly investigated by the Admiralty and the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, to whom Mr. Campbell applied, also considered it. The result was that Mr. Campbell failed to substantiate his claim, and the Admiralty do not propose to take any further action in the matter.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman noted in my question that it was in 1891 this proposal was brought before the Admiralty; and how can experiments carried out during the War affect a pattern brought out in 1891?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Prior to the War.

ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.

Mr. PRIVETT: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that two suits of foreign-service white-drill uniform were measured for, and supplied to, the fifth-class engine-room artificers recently discharged at the home ports shortly before notices were given to terminate their engagements; and will he state why this expenditure of public money was incurred?

Commander EYRES - MONSELL: Following the regular practice, some of the engine-room artificers fifth class recently discharged at Portsmouth had their kits completed in readiness for foreign service when they passed out of the artificer apprentices' training establishment at the end of last year, before the decision to discharge them was arrived at.

FLOATING DOCK (PORTSMOUTH).

Mr. PRIVETT: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the charges made for the use of the floating dry dock at Portsmouth for repairs of mercantile ships are so excessive that orders cannot now be obtained for such repairs at that port; that the demand for the use of the floating dry dock is two and a half times more than is charged at Southampton and Liverpool; and that the charges for labour
and materials are three times more than at Southampton and 11 times more than at Liverpool; and whether he will inquire into the question and give instructions that the charges shall be brought into line with those made at other ports in order to make it possible that ship-repair work can be retained at Portsmouth where, owing to dockyard reductions, a large amount of unemployment exists?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The possibility of reducing charges for use of the floating dock at Portsmouth is being considered, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the expenses incurred in docking a ship in a floating dock are usually considerably heavier than in a graving dock and that any reduction of Admiralty charges made with the object of attracting work to a Government dockyard with the consequent loss of work to private firms needs very careful consideration. I cannot at present undertake that any reduction will be made.

STORES AND PROVISIONS.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the practice in the Navy to supply provisions and stores required upon indents received; whether any cases have been brought to his notice of waste as a result of the supply of stores and provisions being in excess of actual requirements; and what steps are being taken in connection therewith?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. If the hon. Member is aware of any cases of waste, I should be obliged if he would let me know.

ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board are considering the disbandment of the Royal Marine Artillery; and whether he can give an assurance that no steps will be taken in this direction before informing this House?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: As the numbers of Royal Marines have now been reduced to under 10,000, as against 18,000 in the years before the War, it is necessary in the interests of economy to reduce the existing numbers of Royal
Marine Divisions. It has been decided that the best course to adopt is to amalgamate the Royal Marine Artillery and the Royal Marine Light Infantry, and the steps necessary to give effect to this decision are now under consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the great traditions of the Royal Marine Artillery and does he propose lightly to destroy this invaluable asset without consulting the House?

Commander EYRES - MONSELL: Naturally the House has any question under its control by the power to refuse supplies. In this case, His Majesty's permission has been asked, and we are going to retain the old traditions of the splendid Royal Marine Corps, which was only disunited, or made into two Corps, in 1804 or 1806.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do not modern conditions specially demand amphibious artillery like the Royal Marine Artillery? Has that aspect of the matter been considered?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Royal Marine Artillery is absolutely the finest force in the Navy, and can he give an assurance that its disbandment will not be lightly undertaken?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: It is not being disbanded. The two corps are being amalgamated and brought together as they were together in the old days, and they will continue their traditions.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure us that the Royal Marine Artillery will not lose its identity in whatever proposals the Government are considering.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: So far as we can manage it, neither corps will lose its own identity. They will be merged in the one corps of Royal Marines.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will they continue to wear their distinctive uniforms?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: No, Sir.

TURBO-ELECTRIC DRIVE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
whether the attention of the Board had been drawn to the success of the turboelectric drive for warships in America; whether he is aware that 11 battleships and four battle cruisers have been, or are being, fitted with this method of propulsion, whether trials and experiments have been carried out with this system in this country; if so, what is the conclusion arrived at; and whether the system is being tried at the present time?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Admiralty is fully acquainted with all the developments of the turbo-electric drive in the United States of America. No trials have been carried out for warships in this country, and the turbo-electric drive is not being tried at the present time.

BATTLESHIP CONSTRUCTION (COST).

Mr. CLARRY: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the last available comparative costs of battleship construction as between Government and privately-owned dockyards, together with any difference in time required for construction?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The latest battleships for which a comparison of costs can be made are the vessels of the "Queen Elizabeth" class, where the completed costs compare as follows:

Dockyard-built ships:




£


"Queen Elizabeth "
…
2,473,103


"Warspite"
…
2,524,148


Contract-built ships:


"Barham"
…
2,470,113


"Valiant"
…
2,537,037

As regards the time required for building, there was a difference of about four months in favour of the dockyards, but the whole of the class were constructed very rapidly.

Commander BELLAIRS: Are those figures prepared on the same basis in regard to overhead charges, depreciation, and rates?

Commander EYRES - MONSELL: Yes, they include everything.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I take it that the House may conclude that shipbuilding in the Royal Dockyards is much cheaper than shipbuilding in private yards?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: No, there is very little in it.

Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKE: Is it greater or less?

Mr. MAXTON: Do the figures given include overhead charge for private profit in the dockyard as well?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: These figures are strictly comparable.

DOCKYARD, SINGAPORE.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the workmen to be employed at Singapore will be white or Chinese; if the foremen, chargemen, and all in authority will be white men; and if they will be taken from volunteers from home dockyards?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: As the construction of the dockyard will be for the most part carried out by contract, the selection of the staff required must be left to the contractor. Probably, foremen and all higher officers will be white, and workmen and grades below foremen will be obtained locally, if possible. No decision as to the staff to be employed in working the yard has yet been made.

Sir B. FALLE: Do I understand that the spending of £11,000,000 on this dockyard will not benefit the unemployed of Great Britain?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Certainly it will. About half of the £11,000,000 will he spent in material, and that material will he purchased within the four corners of the British Empire.

FISHERY PROTECTION.

Colonel Sir CHARLES BURN: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in consequence of the withdrawal of the fishery protection cruisers from the North Russian coast during the past three months British trawlers have been precluded from operating in some of the most productive fishing grounds in those regions, and that both loss to the trawling industry and diminution of the national food supplies has resulted; whether the reason for the withdrawal of the protective vessels is that there is now no vessel in the British Navy suitable for continuous duty in these regions during the winter; and
whether, in view of the importance of this fishery, both to the fishing industry and to the country, he will take immediate steps to provide a suitable vessel for the work in time for the next fishing season, which commences in September?

Commander EYRES - MONSELL: I understand that the temporary withdrawal of the fishery protection vessels has interfered with fishing activities in North Russian waters. The Admiralty was compelled, owing to the navigational difficulties experienced on the Murmansk coast by the only suitable type of ship available, reluctantly to withdraw the fishery protection vessels at the end of last year. A vessel has now been sent out again, and it is hoped by next year to make arrangements to enable our fishermen to be looked after all the year through.

Sir C. BURN: Is the vessel sent out able to withstand ice, or will a vessel that can withstand ice be sent out later on as the winter comes on?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The sloop "Godetia" has left, and will be in Russian waters by 1st April. She was withdrawn because of the ice difficulty, but now the ice difficulty is less she has gone out again.

LLOYDS' SIGNAL STATIONS.

Sir F. HALL: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, considering that in consequence of the international importance of the distribution of shipping information, Lloyds are unable to acquiesce in transference of their existing agreement to the Board of Trade, he is prepared to state that the coastguardsmen employed at Lloyds' signal stations shall, as in the case of naval signalling stations, continue to be under the immediate control of the naval authorities?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: As stated by the First Lord on 21st instant, the views expressed by Lloyds are receiving the most careful and sympathetic attention.

RETIRED OFFICERS (WAR SERVICE).

Mr. COOPER RAWSON: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty under what Order in Council, or other authority, were retired naval officers who were
recalled to active service during the late War deprived of their pensions while serving, in view of the fact that petty officers and men of the Royal Navy so recalled were not deprived of their pensions, and that officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Army so recalled were not deprived of their pensions; and will he agree to further inquiry being made into the anomaly whereby retired naval officers are subjected to treatment not suffered by any other ranks in the Royal Navy or in the whole of the Army?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Order in Council of 4th March, 1910, which fixes the remuneration of retired naval officers called up for service, makes no provision for the concurrent payment of full pay and retired pay, and, failing such provision, retired pay is not payable. The question has already been most exhaustively considered, and I see no reason for making further inquiries into it.

AUSTRALIAN NAVY.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Defence Council of the Commonwealth of Australia that the Cabinet should approach the Admiralty to secure the interchange of warships between the Australian and the Imperial Fleets in Mediterranean and Atlantic waters; and what are the relations between the Australian Navy and the Royal Navy in time of peace and war?
There is a line left out of this question, as to what is meant by "Imperial Fleet," but I will ask it in a supplementary question.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Admiralty are aware that the principle of such interchangeability has received consideration in Australia, and have expressed their readiness to co-operate in such an exchange. Generally speaking, the Australian Navy and the Royal Navy preserve their own individuality, and the relations in time of peace and war will be found in Cd. 5746–2 of 1911.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the term "Imperial Fleet" is used, and can he say what is the Imperial Fleet?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: All I can say is that in the time of the late War, the Commonwealth Government gave us entire control of their Fleet.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS.

Sir B. FALLE: 25.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty if men invalided from the Navy, in receipt of a disability as well as a service pension, will be eligible for a Greenwich Hospital pension?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The answer is in the affirmative, and steps are now about to be taken to arrange the procedure for payment with the Ministry of Pensions.

AIR UNITS (FLYING).

Viscount CURZON: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the amount of actual flying that has been carried out by the Royal Air Force units attached to the Royal Navy during the past year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): Although it is not desirable in the public interests to give information in detail on this subject, I may say that Royal Air Force units have carried out a large number of exercises in co-operation with the Fleet during the last 12 months, working both from carrier and from shore bases. I may mention, by way of example, the work of the Fleet reconnaissance squadron in His Majesty's Ship "Argus," which accompanies the Atlantic Fleet on their spring cruise; also the torpedo attacks and bombing and machine gun trials against ships of the Royal Navy, which were carried out last July and August. In addition, a great deal of experimental work has been done, and I would refer, in particular, to the cruise of a development flight of flying boats which was undertaken last autumn in conjunction with His Majesty's Ship "Ark Royal," and from which valuable lessons have been learnt.

Viscount CURZON: Has practice also taken place in flying off turrets and off platforms?

Sir S. HOARE: I must have notice of that question. I am hot sure off-hand.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that many men employed in His Majesty's Dockyards, Royal Naval and Army Ordnance, and the Royal Navy victualling yards would be pleased to avail themselves of the opportunity given them to settle in Australia and thus provide vacancies for others now unemployed, provided they could receive their gratuities, so as to enable them to make provision for their wives and children while they themselves are journeying outwards and making the home ready for the reception of their families in a. new country; and can he see his way to consider the suggestions made?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: We have no such information as that referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his question on 22nd March.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If I bring the information to the hon. and gallant Member's notice, will he give it consideration?

Commander EYRES - MONSELL: Certainly; I shall be very glad to do so.

33. Lieut.-Colonel Sir NORTONGRIFFITHS: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider in what way be can further assist boards of guardians where assistance is desired, financial or otherwise, in any effort to help families who are wishful of settling overseas within the British Empire, and who may approach a board of guardians with this end in view?

Mr. BETTERTON: I understand that boards of guardians already have extensive powers of assisting the migration of persons chargeable to them. My right hon. Friend has no means out of the funds at his disposal of giving additional assistance to boards of guardians, but suitable families desirous of settling overseas would be eligible for assistance under the provisions of the Empire Settlement Act.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will my hon. Friend endeavour, after consultation with the Minister, to co-ordinate the work of the Overseas Settlement Com
mittee with that of the boards of guardians; and, further, will he see if financial assistance under the Empire Settlement Act cannot be extended to them to assist families to migrate?.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS (WASHINGTON TREATY).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that what the United States Government now propose, irrespective of the misinformation concerning British plans, is that the American Navy should proceed, under the conditions of the Washington Treaty, to modernise such of her ships as may be necessary to bring the ranges of the two fleets into complete parity; and whether he can give the House any information on the subject?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: My attention has been drawn to various statements, some in the sense indicated in the question, and some in a contradictory sense, but I have no information as to the eventual intentions of the United States Government.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has anyone any information on that subject?

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

KING'S ROLL.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet heard from the King's Roll National Council with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham that a list should be published of all those local authorities employing a staff of more than 20 persons who are not on the King's Roll?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now inform the House as to the names of the local authorities in Great Britain who are not on the King's Roll; and whether he will explain the reasons why the Ministry of Labour have for so many months refused to disclose their names?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As was stated, in reply to the
hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 21st March, the King's Roll National Council, to whom my right hon. Friend referred this matter, are making special efforts with the object of bringing a larger number of local authorities on the Roll, and do not for the present advise any action with regard to the publication of the names of authorities not on the Roll. Clearly the efforts of the National Council would not be. assisted by the publication of the suggested list at the present time.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, as to what is the reason that, for nearly a year now, his Department. have shown such tenderness to these unpatriotic local authorities?

Mr. BETTERTON: You cannot blacklist at the same time as you are preserving a policy of peaceful persuasion. It is premature to try the former method until the latter has definitely failed.

INTERRUPTED APPRENTICESHIPS.

Major BARNETT: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state whether the scheme for interrupted apprenticeships can be extended so as to include young soldiers who joined the Army or the Royal Air Force during the War for a definite period of years, and not merely for the duration?

Mr. BETTERTON: The interrupted apprenticeships scheme was designed to provide for youths whose apprenticeships was interrupted owing to service during the War, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot extend it so as to cover persons who enlisted on regular engagement for a definite period of years. Certain special cases of re-enlistment have, however, been brought to his notice, and are receiving consideration.

Major BARNETT: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the young man who has broken his indentures, in order to join for a definite period of service, is at least deserving of consideration?

Mr. BETTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend will agree, I think, that there is all the difference in the world between the case of a man who enlisted for the duration of the War and the man who contemplated taking up the Army as a regular profession.

REPATRIATION.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider means by which ex-service men who came from various parts of the world to serve in the Great War, and who did not take advantage of the War Office facilities to return to the country from whence they came, can now be provided with third-class passages in cases where it is proved that they are out of employment, and can produce evidence that work awaits them in the country from whence they came?

Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that I can only refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by the Prime Minister on 1st March on the same subject.

TRAINING FACTORY, MANCHESTER (DISCHARGES).

Mr. CLYNES: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether trainees in the pattern-making section of the Government Training Factory, Ayres Road, Brooks Bar, Manchester, are being discharged without any provision being made to find them posts as improvers; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to ensure that these men shall he in a position to earn a livelihood, and obviate any waste of the public money already spent on their training?

Mr. BETTERTON: Seven men are in training in pattern-making at the Government Instructional Factory, Ayres Road, Manchester. Three are not due to leave till next January. Two of the others are leaving this month, and two next month. I gather that the question relates to these four men. Every possible effort is being made to find them posts as improvers in private workshops. For the last six months a special campaign has been carried out in Lancashire for the purpose of placing men in improver-ships in engineering, and, in spite of trade depression, over 60 openings have been secured and filled. I can assure the right hon. Member that every effort will continue to be made to find improverships for these men.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the hon. Gentleman say that, apart from the persons named in the reply, other men have not been discharged?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, I am not in a position to say that.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

Mr. CHARLES CROOK: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of ex-service men who were trained as public elementary teachers at the training colleges for teachers established under the control of the Ministry; how many of these are now unemployed, giving the

College.
Number Trained.
Number known to be employed.
Number known to be unemployed.
Number concerning whom no information is available.


Sarisbury Ct.
…
140
140
—
—


Springfield, Birmingham
…
149
110
17
22


Hornsey
…
174
68
45
51


Erith
…
196
113
31
52

In addition, there are 143 ex-service men still in training at Sarisbury Court.

Out of a total of 30 tutorial staff who were employed at Sprinfield, Hornsey and Erith, 10 are known to be in full time, and one in part-time, employment. No information is available regarding the remainder.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

LOCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

Mr. HANNON: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that the only condition necessary to establish the fact that an applicant for unemployment pay is genuinely seeking work is that the individual should sign on three days a week at the local Employment Exchange, he will say what useful purpose is served by the local advisory committees?

Mr. BETTERTON: Signature at an Employment Exchange is not sufficient by itself to prove that the applicant is genuinely seeking whole-time employment. The functions of the local employment committees are most important as regards verifying the fulfilment, not only of this condition, but also of the various other conditions relating to uncovenanted benefit. Moreover, the assistance of these committees, including, as they do, representatives of local organisations of employers and employed, is essential for the proper performance of practically all branches of the work carried out by the Employment Exchanges.

number for each college separately; and how many of the former members of the staffs of these colleges are also now without employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: The figures asked for in the first and second parts of the question are as follow:

VACANCIES (JOURNEYS).

Mr. HAYDAY: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has issued any instruction, direction, or rule, such as gives power to Employment Exchange officials to send men long distances from their homes in search of employment; and whether he is aware that the principal Act only provides for persons being sent when a vacancy has been notified and it is deemed reasonable that the person should be sent to fill such vacancy?

Mr. BETTERTON: Exchange officials are not empowered to send men a long distance in search of employment. Applicants are not asked to travel in order to take up work at a distance, unless they have previously been accepted by the prospective employer, or the Exchange has good reason to expect that they will be engaged on arrival.

BENEFIT.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that J. D. Walmsley, Earlestown, Lancaster, was disallowed benefit from 22nd December, 1922, to 22nd January, 1923, on the ground that he was not unemployed; that the employment referred to was an attempt to increase his income by sales of the "Daily Herald "; that his income from this source ranged from 3s. id. to 13,s. 6d. per week; that in no case did he earn the equivalent of 3s. 4d. per day; and whether, under these circumstances, he can explain why benefit was disallowed?

Mr. BETTERTON: The limit of 3s. 4d. a day referred to in the question applies only to the earnings from a subsidiary occupation carried on by the applicant before he became unemployed. In general, under Section 7 (2) (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, any day on which any sum is earned cannot be counted as a day of unemployment. The particular case referred to has been the subject of an appeal to the Umpire, who se decision under the Act is final, and who has confirmed the disallowance of benefit.

EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE, DARLASTON.

Mr. SHORT: 42
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the dates upon which the Darlaston Employment Committee have met since its inception; what are the names of those invited to attend on each occasion;
(2) whether he is aware that certain representatives of labour, appointed over 12 months ago as members of the Darlaston Employment Committee, were not summoned to a meeting of the committee until February of this year; and, if so, will he explain why such representatives have not been officially recognised before;
(3) the names of the chairman, vice-chairman, secretary and members of the Darlaston Employment Committee and the organisations, including local authorities, they represent, and the date of their appointment, respectively?

Mr. BETTERTON: The Darlaston Local Employment Committee met 23 times between its first appointment in December, 1917, and April, 1921. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the dates of meeting. All members of the committee for the time being were presumably invited to attend. For various reasons difficulty arose in completing the re-appointment of the committee which subsequently became due, and on this account the members of the reconstituted committee were not summoned to a meeting till February, 1923. During the interval I understand that adequate provision was made for carrying on the necessary work through sub-committees of the old committee. The names of the industrial members of the new committee were given in the reply of 14th March to the hon. Member. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the chairman and other mem
bers. All the appointments date from February, 1923.

Mr. SHORT: But is my hon. Friend aware that members of this Committee were appointed as far back as March, 1922, and have never been summoned to a meeting? How does the hon. Gentleman explain this lapse on the part of the Secretary of the Committee, and will he hold a special inquiry into the matter, as a good deal of ill-feeling has arisen owing to the action of the Secretary?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think I ought to say this: this is a question that has involved a good deal of research, and it only appeared yesterday morning; I am awaiting further particulars. I shall be very glad to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman when the inquiry is complete. The answer I have given comprises the best information I have been able to get in the time available.

Following is list of members of the Committee:

Chairman: Mr. C. W. B. Joynson, J.P., C.C.
Vice-Chairman Mr. J. Barratt.
Members of the Additional Panel:
Captain D. J. Slater, D.F.C., representing the County Territorial Force Association.
Mr. S. P. Barraclough, representing the British Legion.
Councillor F. C. Wesson, representing the urban district council.
Mr. Joseph Yardley, representing the Walsall Guardians.

The Secretary of the Committee is the Manager of the Exchange for the time being.

STATISTICS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour how many boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 years are at work in all industries; how many of the same age are unemployed; how many men and women are engaged in industry over 60 years of age; and how many over that age are unemployed?

Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that no statistics are available as to the total numbers of boys and girls, or of men and women over 60 years of age, who are in employment, or as to the total numbers of such workpeople unemployed at the present time.

Mr. SHORT: Are these figures not available from the Census returns, and will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the Ministry of Health so that these figures may be given to the House?

Mr. BETTERTON: The only figures available are those of the 1911 Census. With regard to the 1921 Census, the figures are not yet complete.

Mr. SHORT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he gave the House the impression that these figures were not available? Now he tells us that they were available for 1911.

Mr. BETTERTON: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thinks I was misleading the House. It is the last thing I want to do. The figures in the 1911 Census would obviously be of no use to anybody, and would be quite misleading. Those for 1921 are not available, but as soon as they are available the hon. Gentleman shall have them.

COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURES).

Mr. HAYDAY: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour for particulars of the method adopted in compiling the cost-of-living index figures shown in the "Labour Gazette" for March, 1923; and whether he will appoint a representative Committee to investigate the present system of compiling the index number?

Mr. BETTERTON: An article giving a full account of the method adopted in compiling these index numbers was published in the "Labour Gazette" for February, 1921, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy. As at present advised, my right hon. Friend does not think it is necessary to appoint a Committee to investigate this matter.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (CANADIAN SHIPS).

Major J. BURNIE: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an Englishman working as a member of the crew of a Canadian ship in an English port who is accidentally injured is debarred from claiming benefit under both the English and Canadian Workmen's Compensation Acts; and whether he will initiate legislation to remedy this defect?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I have. been asked to reply to this question. Our Workmen's Compensation Act does not apply to the crews of ships registered out of the United Kingdom, unless the owner or manager resides or has his principal place of business in the United Kingdom. Consequently, an English member of a crew of a ship owned and registered abroad is not in a position to claim compensation from his employers for an injury sustained in an English port, unless he is entitled to do so under the Workmen's Compensation law of the country to which the ship belongs. The Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation inquired into this question, but they express the opinion, in paragraph 49 of their Report, that it would not be practicable or desirable, save in pursuance of an international agreement, to make any legal provision to enable a British seaman on a ship registered out of the United Kingdom to recover compensation in this country, and that British seamen engaging on such ships must he content to rely on the law of the country of registration. In view of this finding, I should not feel justified in proposing any extension of our Act in the direction suggested.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (WOMEN EMPLOYES).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour what was the average length of Government service of the 1,728 women employ é s dismissed from the Ministry since the present substitution arrangements came into force on 1st October, 1920; what proportion was assisted to train for other occupations by means of Government grants and what proportion received any gratuity such as was given to home service men of similar length of service in a clerical capacity?

Mr. BETTERTON: I fear it is not possible, without considerable research, to state the average length of Government service of temporary women employ é s. discharged from the Ministry since October, 1920, nor what proportion of such women received assistance towards training from the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment. So
far as I am aware, no gratuities were payable to temporary clerical employ é s, whether men or women, who were engaged during the War.

Mr. HAYDAY: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the investigators reviewing the private circumstances of temporary women employ é s in his Department include a representative of those being cross-examined, in accordance with the general practice in other Departments and the desire of the staff concerned; and, if not, whether he will consider adding to the examining committee the women's substitution representative?

Mr. BETTERTON: There is a representative of the temporary women staff on the Substitution Committees of the Ministry of Labour both at headquarters and at Kew. It has not, however, been the practice of the Department to include a representative of the temporary women employ é s at Kew in either of the reviews of the private circumstances of these women which have taken, and are taking, place. One of the two investigators is a permanent women officer of long experience.

Mr. HAYDAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say that, while may not have been the practice, he will give further consideration to the point?

Mr. BETTERTON: The question indicates what is said to be the practice in other Departments. I am making inquiries, and my inquiries have not been completed on that point.

BANK OF FRANCE (CREDITS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the credit of £ 75,000,000 granted by the Bank of England to the Bank of France, which should be repaid at the end of this month; whether this credit was given with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government; is the debt due by the French Government or by a French corporation; and if there is a default in payment will the shareholders of the Bank of England or the British taxpayer suffer the loss?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The credits were given by the Bank of England to the Bank of France in 1916 and 1917 and
the amount now outstanding is £55,000,000, repayable by the end of August next. The debt is due by the Bank of France with whom the Bank of England is negotiating. The transaction was entered into with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government who guarantee the Bank of England under the powers of the War Obligations Acts.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that mean, in the case of default, that the British taxpayer will have to foot the Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that any question of default will arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

EAST PRUSSIA AND DANZIG.

Mr. MOREL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if information has reached His Majesty's Government pointing to the intended occupation in the immediate future of East Prussia by Polish forces and the assumption of complete control over the port of Danzig by the Polish Government?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the negative.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. N. BUXTON: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the German Government intimated in a note to the Government of the United States of America on 26th April, 1921, that it was prepared to pay for reparations a sum equal to £2,500,000,000 sterling, and that on 3rd January, 1923, His Majesty's Government estimated Germany's capacity to pay at the same figure, he will state what action, if any, His Majesty's Government have taken in regard to the German offer of April, 1921?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not see what action it is supposed the Government could take on an offer to another Government which is two years old and subject to conditions such as the retention of Silesia which cannot now be fulfilled. The Government submitted to the Paris Conference in January last a comprehensive plan for dealing with the reparation situation as it then was, but it was not forwarded to Germany for the reason that the other Allies did not accept it.

Mr. BUXTON: Is it not likely that delay will lead to a further diminution of Germany's power to pay?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that is possible.

EGYPT (ARRESTS).

Mr. MOREL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the arrested members of the Wafd, Egyptian delegation, are to be brought before a British military court in Cairo; and what charges are to be made against them?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no official information in regard to either part of the question.

HOME RULE (SCOTLAND).

Mr. ROBERT MURRAY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the persistent difference of political opinion in Scotland as compared with England, he will take steps to call a representative Scottish convention with a view to formulating and adopting a scheme of autonomy for Scotland?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask why?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I am without the services of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. MURRAY: In view of that reply, cannot more time be given in this House to the study of Scottish questions?

>NEAR EAST.

Mr. MAXTON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce a Resolution under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, to set up an inquiry into the alleged responsibility of certain Members of the late Government in tendering advice to the Greek Ministry of 1921, which had the consequence of leading to serious Greek military disasters and the execution of five Greek Ministers for their alleged misconduct in acting on such advice?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the negative.

RAILWAY FREIGHTS.

Dr. CHAPPLE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will hold an immediate inquiry into the part played by the railway combine and the Railways Act, 1921, in the maintenance of freights at a level which is crushing agriculture, hampering trade revival, and promoting unemployment?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not aware what the hon. Member means by the railways combine, but in view of the establishment by the Railways Act, 1921, of the Railway Rates Tribunal, which is now the determining authority for railway charges, and to which appeal can be made at any time, I am unable to agree that any useful purpose would be served by instituting the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Is the purpose of that Act to reduce the rates, or to keep them up? [An HON. MEMBER: "Keep them up! "]

COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE (SECRETARY).

Commander BELLAIRS: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is more than enough work in connection with the Empire and the three fighting Services to absorb the entire energy of the secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence; and whether he will consider bringing to an end the wartime arrangement by which this official is also secretary of the Cabinet?
Would it also be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the clerkship to the Privy Council?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no reason to believe that the secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence is unable to combine his duties with those of secretary of the Cabinet, which have been considerably lightened since the present Government came into office. On the contrary, I have observed great advantages in combining the two posts, and thus ensuring complete co-ordination between the work of the Cabinet and the Committee of Imperial Defence and their respective Committees.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hem. Gentleman aware of the objection of the public to the creation of "Pooh-Bah" posts of this kind, this gentleman now having three separate posts?

NATIONAL DEFENCE (CORRELATION COMMITTEE).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 57.
asked tile Prime Minister the composition of the Committee appointed to consider the correlation of the three services of defence?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which the Prime Minister gave on the 26th March in reply to a question by the right hon. Member or South Molton (Mr. Lambert).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does that mean that this House is to be kept in ignorance of the Commissioners who will hold this inquiry?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is not customary to give them. There is a question later on the Paper.

Commander BELLAIRS: 60.
asked the Prime Minister on what grounds he refuses to give the names of Sub-committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence which have been set up in response to demands for inquiry from this House; and whether he is aware that the names were given on the occasion of the inquiry into Lord Charles Beresford's charges concerning the state of the Navy?

Mr. BALDWIN: As was stated in the House on the 26th March by the Prime Minister, it is not customary to give the names of members of Sub-Committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence during the inquiry. In regard to the second part of the question, the names of the members of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence appointed to inquire into certain questions of naval policy raised by Lord Charles Beresford, were given in the Report of the Sub-Committee which was presented to Parliament.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two of the names of the members have already been given: can he not give us the third?

SCOTTISH MINISTERS.

Mr. STURROCK: 59
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the Secretary for Scotland sits in the House of Lords, and that neither of the Scottish Law Officers are in the House of Commons, he will consider the advisability of strengthening the representation of Scottish interests on the Treasury Bench before the Scottish Estimates are taken?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. STURROCK: May we have a more detailed statement as to the shape in which the strengthening process is to be carried out?

MENTAL HOSPITAL, SUNDERLAND (DEATH).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 64.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Beatrice Bowey, formerly a patient in the Sunderland Mental Hospital, who died there on 18th March, 1922; is he aware that on 22nd February the acting medical superintendent referred to the prospect of her speedy recovery; that the husband received no intimation of his wife's change of health until summoned to find his wife dead; that the husband has made allegations of gross ill-treatment, starvation, and neglect, and of false reports having been made by the officials of the institution; that at an inquiry held on 26th June the inquiry committee did not call any of the nurses of the institution; and, in view of the distrust engendered by the refusal to call the best evidence, will the Minister of Health direct that a public inquiry be held as to the treatment of this patient in this institution?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have been fully informed of the circumstances of this case. I understand that the patient's condition deteriorated very rapidly and that she died quite suddenly. I am aware of the allegations made by the husband and of the procedure of The inquiry committee. The case has also been investigated by a Commissioner of the Board of Control, who has recently had a long interview with the husband and fully explained to him the whole of the circumstances of the case. I can find
no evidence to support the allegations made in this case, and doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by the further inquiry suggested.

MANUAL WORKERS (WAGES).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour if, taking the chief trades of the country, he will state which are the six best paid so far as manual workers are concerned and which are the six worst paid, and indicate in each case whether any proposals have been put forward for a reduction of wages?

Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that the information at, my disposal is not sufficient to enable me to say which are the six best paid and the six worst paid industries.

NORTHERN IRELAN D (POLICE FORCE).

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is satisfied that the maintenance of an armed special police force in Northern Ireland by the English taxpayers, as is proposed, and the creation of a new naval force in Northern Ireland, as is also proposed, is not a breach of the terms of the Irish Treaty of the 6th December, 1921?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. I do not consider that the provision of financial assistance towards the maintenance of a force for duties which otherwise would have to be discharged by troops involves a breach of either the letter or the spirit of the Treaty. I am not aware of any proposal to establish a new naval force in Northern Ireland.

CHINA (BRITISH TRADE).

Dr. CHAPPLE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether any Department of the Government is charged with the duty of directing its efforts to the more rapid development of trade with China?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Department primarily concerned is the
Department of Overseas Trade, which is charged with the duty of promoting trade with China as with other parts of the world.

Dr. CHAPPLE: What steps are being taken—what efforts made to promote trade with China?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING MATERIALS.

Mr. STEPHEN: 56.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the imminent increase in the price of building materials, if he will take steps to convert the existing munition factory at Park-head into a national factory for the production of building materials, and so provide useful work and houses for the unemployed people in the east end of Glasgow?

Captain DOUGLAS KING (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Government do not propose to take steps with a view to the establishment of a national factory for the production of building materials.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the extraordinary suffering in the Central Division of Glasgow, and in the Camlachie Division, and in the East End districts, and is he not prepared to introduce some measures of alleviation for that suffering more than has already been done?

Mr. R. MORRISON: 67.
asked the Minister of Health the names of the Committee which he has decided to set up in order to watch the prices of building materials; what powers, if any, the Committee will have; and in what way the work of the Committee will prevent rings and combines from charging increased prices?

Mr. SHORT: 71.
asked the Minister of Health the names of the persons who are to comprise the Committee to watch the prices of building materials?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not vet in a position to announce the names of the members of the Committee. The terms of reference to the Committee will be as follow:—

To be a Committee to survey the prices of building materials and to receive and consider complaints in respect thereof, and to report from time to time to the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Trade as to the facts, and, in particular, as to the extent to which in any case the price appears to be unduly high by reason of the operation of any trade combination, trust or agreement.

It will be for the Government to consider, on the Reports of the Committee, whether action is necessary, and, if so, on what lines.

Mr. J. JONES: In. addition to the reply to the question put the other day, will the right hon. Gentleman now give us information as to whether representatives of the trade unions and the building guilds will be appointed on this Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There will be a representative of a trade union in connection with the building trade.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the names of the Committee will be available to the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That will depend upon when I get answers from the gentlemen to whom I have written.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it the intention that this Committee shall make periodical reports to the Government, and, if so, at what intervals?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think they will snake practically continuous reports.

STATE SUBSIDY.

Mr. PRINGLE: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether the new housing subsidy proposals will apply to private individuals building houses for their own occupation; and, if so, whether he will indicate how they can receive the benefits of the scheme?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I suggest that the hon. Member should await publication of the proposals of the Government in the Housing Bill.

Mr. PRINGLE: How long will it be before they are published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: think very soon after Easter.

Mr. T. SMITH: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is considering legis
lation to assist persons who are desirous of building their own houses; and, if so, what is the kind of assistance proposed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second is that the matter will be dealt with in the Housing Bill.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 95.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention, in granting the 16 subsidy per house, to consider a house built in fiats as two or more houses, provided that the accommodation in each flat is as adequate as in working-class houses for the occupation of single families?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 97.
asked the Ministry of Health if the new housing proposals will apply to all forms of residential construction or only those intended to be let at a specified maximum rent; whether they will also be applied to the construction of flats; and, if so, on what basis?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would suggest that the hon. Member should await publication of the proposals of the Government in the Housing Bill.

SOUTH WALES.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the peculiar difficulties, such as obtaining suitable sites for building houses, of some of the local authorities in South Wales, he will consider making an additional subsidy to cover the extra cost?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. As at present advised, I think it is essential, in order to give local authorities the maximum of freedom in making their arrangements and to reduce central control to a minimum, that the subsidy should be on a flat rate basis.

PARLOUR HOUSES.

Mr. HOUFTON: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that many persons of the working class prefer the parlour type of house (especially those who have large families), he can see his way clear to give the same amount of subsidy on this type of house that he has promised on houses of the non-parlour type?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The proposed principle of the subsidy is that it should be given only for the small type of house which has not been built in any considerable numbers in the last few years, and which is the least attractive proposition to private enterprise.

Mr. HOUFTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difference in cost to-day between a non-parlour and a parlour house is not more than £40, and why should they not have the same subsidy?

Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a subsidy within these limits will give rise to very great dissatisfaction, and will in no sense be a contribution to the solution of the housing problem?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I cannot accept that at all. It will be a contribution; I do not say it will be a solution of the housing problem.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it definitely decided not to build houses fit for heroes to live in?

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a subsidy should only be given for the building of houses where only quite tiny families can be accommodated, and does he think it quite the right thing that a home for a working-class family should not have within it one room where the mother or the father can just get away from their children? Would the right hon. Gentleman, or anybody else on the other side, like to live in such a house?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have to recognise the fact that our resources are limited—

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, but they provide you and me with houses.

SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT, 1899.

Colonel NEWMAN: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, as amended in the Act of 1919, is largely a dead letter owing to the citizen not being aware of its provisions and also because the Act applies to the purchase of houses already built and not to houses that the citizen desires to build for personal occupation; and, in view of the importance of each citizen, as far
as possible, owning the house he lives in, is it the intention of the Government to bring the Act of 1899 more fully up to date during the present Session?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both questions is in the affirmative.

CANCER.

Major MOLLOY: 65.
asked the Minister of Health what is the death rate from cancer in Great Britain at the present time; what was the death rate from this disease during each of the previous four decades; what proportion of deaths from all causes, other than accident or violence, are due to this scourge and what financial provision is made by His Majesty's Government towards assisting those engaged in fighting this plague by their endeavours to ascertain its causes and the best means of combatting its ravages?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The standardised death rates from cancer in England and Wales in the four decades 1881–1890, 1891–1900, 1901–1910, and 1911–1920, and in the year 1921, were 610, 767, 867, 966, and 1,007 per million of the population respectively.

In England and Wales the cancer deaths during the above decades represented 3.2, 4.3, 6.1, and 8.0 per cent. of the total deaths from all causes, other than those due to accident and violence.

The promotion of cancer research is among the purposes for which an annual subsidy is made by Parliament to the Medical Research Council, and the Council from time to time make grants in aid of investigations which may bear on the incidence, causation, and treatment of cancer. The Council also have in their charge a quantity of radium salt belonging to His Majesty's Government, and with this have organised an investigation into the treatment of cancer by means of radium in 10 different hospital centres in this country.

My hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware that an extensive research into the causes of the disease has for some time past been undertaken by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE (MILK).

Mr. BURGESS: 72.
asked the Minister of Health what is his policy with regard to the issue of milk to poor mothers and children?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular laying down the lines on which grants are now being made by my Department in aid of the supply of milk free or at less than cost price to necessitous expectant and nursing mothers and to children under five. I have not yet had time to examine the policy adopted in this matter.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. BURGESS: 73.
asked the Minister of Health the names of the six boards of guardians which give the largest allowances in relief; and if he will in each case state the amount?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Particulars in regard to the amount of the allowances for all the various classes of persons in receipt of relief are not immediately available, but, taking into account only the relief to unemployed persons and their dependants, the unions in which the weekly expenditure per head is highest are West Ham, Poplar, Limehouse, Greenwich, Sheffield and Woolwich, the rates of expenditure being 6s. 9¼d., 6s. 7¼d., 6s. 4¼d., 6s. O¼d., 5s, 6¾d, and 5s. 6½d., respectively.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to recognise the fact that a large number of the people who are being relieved in places like West Ham are people who came into the district in consequence of the War and are now planted upon us, so that we have to keep on maintaining them; and would the Government be prepared to take into consideration the advisability of adopting some method of relieving the local ratepayers in matters of this kind?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

Mr. PALING: 79.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that C. H. Hancock, of 4, Hope Street, Eden Grove, Holloway, who, prior to joining the Army, resided at Denaby, near Doncaster, has only worked 17 weeks since January, 1922; that the
Islington Board of Guardians paid him supplementary relief for himself, wife, and four children until stopped by the Doncaster Board of Guardians; and that subsequent appeals to the Doncaster Guardians have been rejected; and, seeing that his income is only 24s. per week out-of-work pay, will he take steps. to have the case inquired into at once?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that the facts of this case are substantially as stated in the question. I have no power to intervene for the purpose of ordering relief in a particular case, but I am bringing to the notice of the Islington Guardians the fact that their duty of relieving destituton, if it be present in the case, is not affected by the refusal of the Doncaster Board of Guardians to grant non-resident relief.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Doncaster Board of Guardians are placed in a very favourable position compared with most other boards, in that they have been called upon to pay very little unemployment pay, owing to the fact that there has been little unemployment in Doncaster? If the Islington board do not assent to this,. will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the, Doncaster board to deal with the case decently?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot persuade the board of guardians to do otherwise than they are allowed to do in their discretion, but that is not really the point. The point is what the Islington Board of. Guardians are going to do.

NURSES' REGISTER.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 74.
asked the Minister of Health why the General Nursing Council for England and Wales has only printed and published in the middle of March, 1923, its first register, in view of the fact that No. 7 of the rules sanctioned by Parliament explicitly states that this shall be issued as soon as possible after the 1st July, 1922, and as soon as possible after the 1st January of the year 1923 and of each subsequent year, and, as this rule gives no sanction for the publication of two registers in the year 1923, on what date will the second register appear; whether, in view of the fact that the first published register has only been
issued this month, he will state what authority the General Nursing Council for England and Wales has in sending out notices to registered nurses demanding a retention fee, when, by No. 5 of the rules sanctioned by Parliament, it is only required from a nurse who desires her name to be retained on the register for any year subsequent to the first year in which it is included in the published register; and whether, as this notice was sent from the General Nursing Council offices as far back as August, 1922, and as many nurses have paid whose names are not on first register and who therefore, according to the present rules, are only required to pay this fee on or before the 30th September, 1924, he will, to avoid confusion, direct that all retention fees illegally obtained before the middle of March, 1923, be returned to the registered nurses, especially in view of the fact that the General Nursing Council for Scotland, in the parallel case, has given notice that it does not require a retention fee for 1922 and has, it is understood, returned to its nurses those already paid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that the first register has been printed and published as soon after 1st July, 1922, as was possible. It is the register for 1922. The second register, which will be that dating from 1st January, 1923, is now in the printer's hands. I am informed that no nurses have been requested to pay the retention fee whose names are not on the first register. I have no power to give any direction as to the return of any fees.

SMOKE CONTROL.

Lieut.- Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE,: 75.
asked the Minister of Health, whether, in view of the deleterious effect on public health of smoke fogs, he will make regulations that all houses in future erected with the aid of public money shall be fitted with smoke-consuming appliances or with grates adapted to the burning of smokeless fuel pending comprehensive legislation on the whole question of smoke control?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I sympathise with the desire to reduce the emission of smoke, but I should consider it very un
desirable to impose such restrictions as are suggested at the present time of serious shortage of houses.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS(AMENDMENT).

Colonel NEWMAN: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether a Bill for the amendment and consolidation of the Public Health Acts is in preparation; and is it the intention of the Government to introduce the same during the present Session?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Legislation for the purpose of amending the Public Health Acts on a number of points which experience has shown to be necessary is now under consideration in my Department, and is in my opinion an essential preliminary to any consolidating Measure. Although I cannot undertake to deal with the matter in the present Session, my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the urgent importance of consolidating these numerous and complicated Statutes is fully present in my mind.

SANITARY INSPECTORS (SALARIES).

Mr. LANSBURY: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, which imposes upon him the duty of taking all such steps as may be desirable to secure the preparation, effective carrying out, and coordination of measures conducive to the health of the people, he will consider the desirability of recommending the payment of adequate salaries to sanitary inspectors and health officers as one method of giving effect to the Section in question?

Mr. SITCH: 85.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the terms for all appointments as sanitary inspectors must now be submitted to him by local authorities before advertising such positions, when such approval is sought, he has any regard for the salary which is offered as being an adequate one, having in view the responsible duties of the officer to be appointed?

Mr. J. DAVISON: 92.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact
that many candidates applying for appointments in the public health services at totally inadequate salaries do so on account of their individual circumstances, and are glad to find employment at any salary, he will consider the advisability of encouraging local authorities to give adequate remuneration for this service?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is my practice, when my approval is sought for the appointment of a sanitary inspector, to consider whether the salary proposed is adequate to secure efficient service. As I stated in reply to a question on this subject on the 14th instant, I cannot, in present circumstances, require local authorities to pay salaries in excess of what they themselves consider necessary and what enables them to secure efficient service.

Mr. LANSBURY: Seeing that the Government pay half the salary, will not the Department consider the advisability of laying down a scale below which public authorities shall not fall—a minimum salary for these officers.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be very difficult to do that. What we have to make certain of is that the salaries offered are sufficient to command the services of efficient inspectors, and, as long as we can get that, I think it would he very difficult to lay down a hard-and-fast line as to what, the salary should be.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain districts quite inefficient persons have been appointed, simply because the salary is no enough to attract an efficient person?

HEALTH SERVICES.

E9. Mr. R. RICHARDSON: asked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken to perform the duty imposed upon him by Section 2 of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, to train persons for the health services?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The duty actually imposed on the Minister of Health by Section 2 of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, is to take such steps as may be desirable to secure the training of persons for health services. The needs of the situation have been judged
to be adequately met by the revisions effected since the establishment of the Ministry, in the qualifications required of medical officers of health, sanitary inspectors and health visitors.

BATTERSEA BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Viscount CURZON: 90.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Battersea Borough Council have decided to purchase a plot, of land in the borough for the purpose of erecting a show room for electrical appliances at a price of £4,000; whether he is aware that the land referred to is valued by the district valuer at £3,300; and whether he can take any steps to prevent such a transaction taking place?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY' to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT' (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The sanctioning authority for loans in connection with electricity supply is the Electricity Commissioners. In the event of the borough council applying to the Commissioners for sanction to borrow' money for the acquisition of the land in question, the Commissioners, in accordance with their general practice, will consult the district valuer.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand from that answer that a borough council has power to go in for this expenditure and the Government have no power to prevent it?

Colonel ASHLEY: It depends whether the borough council are going to pay for it out of the rates or out of their general powers, or are coming for a special loan.

Viscount CURZON: If it is out of the rates, have the Government power to deal with the matter?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Battersea Borough Council, by running its own power station, are selling electric current at 4½d. as compared with 8d. in the neighbouring borough by a private company, and in view of this, and especially when the landlord will not part with the land cheaper, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider this a, reasonable demand?

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE (FICTITIOUS PRISON INTERVEW).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 100.
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to an article published in a Sunday newspaper of the 11th instant which purported to give an account of an interview in the condemned cell with a prisoner under sentence of death whose appeal was pending; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): Yes, Sir. No interview in the condemned cell could have taken place without a grave breach of the Prison Regulations. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has caused exhaustive inquiries to be made, and he has ascertained that no such interview as that described in the "Sunday Illustrated" newspaper of the 11th instant ever took place and that the article was entirely unfounded and fictitious. In any event, I regard the publication as a breach of public decency, and it has already been publicly censured by the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Criminal Appeal. An apology has been received from the proprietors of the journal in question, who state that they were misled and that they did not know when the article appeared that an appeal was pending, and, at my instance, this apology has been repeated in the columns of last Sunday's issue of the journal. I have accordingly decided, in all the circumstances, not to take further proceedings in the present case, but I am glad to have had the opportunity of stating that I regard such a publication as most objectionable.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the name of the paper?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did say. It was the "Sunday Illustrated."

Mr. J. JONES: Will the proprietors and editors of these papers, who are making a trade out of dealing in filth in every way and sordidness, be invited to the Bar of this House to be admonished by the Speaker?

MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.

Mr. J. JONES: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that
the question of remuneration of municipal officers generally in the Metropolitan area is being considered by the Metropolitan Provincial Whitley Council; and, if so, whether he is prepared to accept the findings arrived at by the employers and employés constituting that body?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As regards the second question, I am now in communication with the Metropolitan Provincial Whitley Council as to their proposed scales.

TUBERCULOSIS (SPAHLINGER TREATMENT).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 94.
asked the, Minister of Health whether' his attention has been called to the Spahlinger treatment for tuberculosis; whether his Department has made or can make any report in regard to it; and whether the British Red Cross Society has allocated any and, if so, what sum for this treatment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first two parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Withington Division on the 21st instant, of which I will send him a copy. As regards the last part, I understand that certain negotiations have been taking place between the British Red Cross Society and M. Spahlinger, but, so far as I am aware, no definite arrangements have yet been concluded.

POSTAL FACILITIES (GOOD FRIDAY).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: (by Private Notice)
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the curtailment of the postal facilities accorded in previous years to the newspaper Press, by the withdrawal of the single complete delivery of letters on Good Friday morning, will seriously interfere with the work of provincial daily newspapers having offices in London, and whether he can see his way to cancel the order so far as the Fleet Street area is concerned?

Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): It was found that a delivery in London on Good Friday was of little practical value, as nearly all business premises are closed, and it was accordingly decided in the interests of economy to apply the normal Sunday arrangements to that day. The express letter system and the special Sunday arrangements for the benefit of newspaper offices will be available on Goad Friday. My right hon. Friend is, however, prepared to consider personally any representations which my hon. Friend may send him.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Do we understand this is a matter for business men only? Have private persons no interest in the matter?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer state the business to be taken the week after we resume on the other side of the Easter holidays?

Mr. BALDWIN: On Monday, the Dangerous Drugs and Poisons Amendment Bill, Report and Third Reading; Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill, Second Reading; Special Constables Bill, Second Reading; and Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, Second Reading.

Tuesday: Supply, Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Civil Service Estimates— Class 1, Vote for Public Buildings will be on the Paper.

Wednesday: The Agriculture Debate.

Thursday: Supply, third allotted day—Board of Education Vote.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is not available, and is it not rather difficult to come back on Monday to discuss a Bill we have never seen? I have asked in the Vote Office every day for it.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am informed that the Bill will be circulated in a day or two at the latest.

Mr. LANSBURY: The House will not be sitting, and most Members, at least myself, will be on holiday. We ought not to be expected to come here on Monday, and discuss a Bill we have never seen.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the discussion on agriculture be on a Motion for the Adjournment from the Front Bench or on a Resolution?

Mr. BALDWIN: On a Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is the Special Constables Bill circulated yet?

Mr. LANSBURY: What about the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should have thought that there would be much more time to study the Bill with comparative leisure when the House is not sitting.

Mr. LANSBURY: I quite agree that there is a humorous side about this subject, but there is another side to it. I particularly wish to discuss this Bill, and I am not certain that I shall be able to get the Bill where I am going. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are you going? "] I may be going to quod again. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order that a Bill, the First Beading of which was taken at the end of last week, should not be available by now?

Mr. SPEAKER: There may be something in the hon. Member's point if the Bill has not been circulated long enough when the Second Reading is called. I would point out that it is on the Committee stage of this Bill, and not on the Second Reading, that discussion is taken. That has always been the case.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it in order that a Bill should not be open for discussion on Second Reading, and that Members are not expected to raise questions during the Second Reading? Why have a Second Reading if we are not supposed to consider the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member looks up the records, he will see that it has always been held by the Chair that in the case of this Bill the Committee stage is the effective stage. I do not say that there should be no Debate on the Second Reading, but there should be no detailed criticism.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is not this the same Bill every year, and is it not a fact that discussion arises only when Amendments are put down?

Mr. LANSBURY: I respectfully protest against the doctrine that a Bill may
be introduced into this House, and that an individual Member is not to have the right to discuss the principles of the Bill. Has not he the right to have an opportunity of looking at the Bill before it comes to the House for Second Reading?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will deal with that matter when it arises.

Mr. RILEY: If the discussion on agriculture takes place on the Wednesday after the Easter Recess, will the Report of the Committee be circulated before the discussion? It is important that the Report of the Committee should be available before the discussion.

Mr. BALDWIN: Will the hon. Member tell me to which Committee he refers?

Mr. RILEY: The Committee which was appointed as a result of our last discussion on the subject. The Minister of Agriculture knows the Committee quite well.

Mr. BALDWIN: I will see if that be possible.

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the form of the Debate, so as to allow the House to come to a decision on some concrete issue regarding the Government's policy?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think we had better have a discussion on the Bill.

Resolved, "That this House do meet To-morrow at Eleven of the Clock."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

NOTICES OF MOTION.

NATIONALISATION OF INDUSTRIES.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the experiences of other countries in respect to the nationalisation of industries, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Briggs.]

BRITISH TRADE, SOUTH AMERICA.

On this clay four weeks, to call attention to the need of developing trade in South America, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir Douglas Newton.]

GOVERNMENT PRINTING WORKS,
HARROW.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the Government Printing Works at Harrow, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook.]

WAR MEMORIALS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS).

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I beg to move,
 That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities under certain circumstances to maintain, repair, and protect war memorials vested in them.
I ask for this permission in consequence of the state of the law on the matter at the present time, and because of the fact that in various parts of the country there are a large number of memorials of the Great War which have been erected by private subscription and handed over to-parish councils, urban councils and boroughs, and the question how these memorials are to be protected from time, from weather and from misfortune has become a practical matter. In the vast majority of eases to-which this refers, the memorials are on public thoroughfares, and in places of public resort. Every year and every month that passes some of those who gave to the erection of the memorials: die, and unless there is some protection given, and the law is made available for such provision being made, these memorials may perish long before anyone-would desire that they should The law at the present time in reference to this matter is by no means clear. In the rural parishes, the parish councils have power to receive all kinds of property for the benefit of the whole parish, and to incur certain expenditure in the maintenance of such gifts. How far that would apply in the case of crosses, cenotaphs and tablets which have no use apart from their memorial value is by no means certain. As regards towns, large or small, there is no analogous power, and it is very doubtful whether they could use any of their resources for the upkeep of these memorials. The case was met during the War in a few instances by Departmental action, but. I am sure that this House-would prefer that the law should be made perfectly clear, and that whatever authority is necessary should be set up in. an Act of Parliament, so that it can be understood.
The proposals of this Measure, briefly, are, that every local authority which represents any positive community, like a parish or a town, should be authorised to maintain, repair, and protect these memorials, subject to very careful financial restrictions. These restrictions are
that in the case of a rural parish an amount not greater than that raised by a penny rate is to be spent in any year, with the sanction of the county council, and that in regard to towns of all sizes, they can spend whatever they think proper, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Health, in a way analogous to what is now done in regard to loans. In the case of Scotland, it is probable that the existing law is adequate, but the Bill is so drafted that it would be possible, in Committee, on the Scottish Office looking into the matter, to add a Clause applying to Scotland that precisely analogous condition. That is what the Bill is for, and I hope it will commend itself to the judgment and sympathy of the House that these memorials should be protected. We live at a time when in this, as in most countries, greater care is taken than ever before to preserve memorials of antiquity and to prevent the destruction of memorials which relate, it may be, to
 old unhappy, far-off things, and battles long ago.
If so, is it not well, with regard to memorials of that great War, so recent, and in which this country lost so many of its children, that the same protection should be given, and given by us, the rest of whose lives must be passed under the shadow of that War?

Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities under certain circumstances to maintain, repair, and protect War Memorials vested in them," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Ryland Adkins, Captain Bowyer, Major Burnie, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Mr. William Graham, Major-General Sir Robert. Hutchison, Rear-Admiral Sir Reginald Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan, Mr. George Thorne, Mr. Turton, and Colonel Wedgwood.

WAR MEMORIALS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES'POWER) BILL,

to enable local authorities under certain circumstances to maintain, repair, and protect war memorials vested in them," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS(AMENDMENT).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: I beg to move,
 That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act, 1912.
This Measure, I feel sure, will appeal to Members of all parties, in view of the most extraordinary outbreak of wanton and callous acts of cruelty which are taking place throughout the country. The Bill would give a magistrate, sitting at a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the power to award corporal punishment in the case of gross and persistent cruelty. The Measure is not advocated in any revengeful spirit. It is advocated because the backers of the Bill are convinced that, in point of fact, it will prove a preventive Measure, and that therefore these dreadful cases, which have been repeatedly brought to our notice through the medium of the Press, will have a tendency to decrease. I think the majority of Members will agree that a man who would perpetrate such a crime as to kick, starve or thrash his own dog to death is necessarily a coward. A coward would certainly consider his position if he thought that, as a result of his conduct, he would receive in a measure something of the treatment he had given to his dog. it is sometimes held that to inflict corporal punishment on an individual is to demoralise that individual. The whole of my ease is based on this, that it is absolutely impossible to demoralise a man whose present morals permit him to carry out such wanton acts. In my judgment, the only way is to put physical fear into the minds of these depraved people. That is the only fear they are capable of understanding.
The communications I have received from all classes of people throughout the country are very interesting and extraordinary, not only in their number but in their intensity of feeling, which is all directed in one way, and that is in favour of this Measure. I have received, amongst others, a letter from the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions in a Midland area. He says, as an officer of great experience, that
 In cases of cruelty to animals "—
this applies to juveniles only—
 they can only fine or imprison. The latter they very naturally are disinclined to do, and the former is inadequate.
I quite appreciate that point of view, and I submit that this Bill would overcome that. difficulty. It is impossible to pass a Bill—not only is it impossible, but I feel it would be undesirable—which would have any tendency whatsoever to interfere with the discretion of the magistrates concerned. At the same time, you must give them powers which they do not already possess. In other words, you must endeavour to make the punishment fit the crime. Let us consider, for a moment, what kind of punishment would appeal to a man who carries out the following acts of cruelty. Who kicks the eye out of a pony that has fallen; who strikes a pony on the head with a hatchet; who lashes a mare with a chain weighing over 4 lbs.; a. town councillor, if you please, a leading citizen of a certain city, who kicks a cat to death; and a man who stretches a cat apart, until its back breaks, and its kidneys are dislodged; not to mention the man who beats the ribs of a horse into pulp with a shoeing hammer. I can give chapter and verse to any hon. Member interested in the question, but I will not weary the House with such disgusting and revolting cases. Suffice it is to say that I could go on for the whole sitting giving chapter and verse for such cases.
Consider the pain these animals must experience before they die under such circumstances. Consider the agony of mind of a dog, which has been chained to a small, leaky, and damp kennel, without any bedding of any kind whatever, for over a year. Day after day, week after week, and month after month the master of the dog has witnessed the agony and distress of that poor wretched creature, and has done nothing that he possibly could do to help it. I submit that to fine a man 30s. and costs for such a diabolical deed is entirely out of proportion to English justice. The only way is to make him think whether it is worth his while to repeat such an act. Some people hold that to inflict corporal punishment is to interfere with the liberties of the people, that it is not democratic, and that we should be sinking again to the level of barbarians. In my judgment, that is the biggest bunkum and nonsense I have ever
heard, because a man who is entitled to the sympathy of this House and the respect of his fellow men would not do such a thing.
I want to appeal most earnestly to the Home. Secretary—who, I am sorry to see, is not present at the moment—because he told us yesterday that he thought the only necessary thing to do had already been done by ventilating this question on the Floor of the House. If I may respectfully say so, I do not consider that theory holds any water whatsoever. Take, for instance, the Ilford murder, particulars of which were published all over the land. On that theory, another murder would not have taken place for a lifetime. What do we find 1 In point of fact, within a fortnight, another such case occurred. If the House gives me permission to bring in this Bill, I earnestly appeal to the Home Secretary, in the meantime, before the Measure becomes law, to write a letter to the magistrates, calling on them to use the powers which they already possess to the very utmost in all cases of gross and persistent cruelty. I assure the House, and my hon. Friends of the Labour party, that this is not a party question, and is not brought forward as a party issue. I trust, most sincerely, that should the House divide they will support me on this occasion. Especially do I appeal to my right hon. Friends who have the honour to occupy the front Government Bench, that they will give me all their support in bringing in this Measure.

Mr. PONSONBY: I desire to oppose this Bill, because it is based on an entirely false conception of punishment and of justice. I cannot help being surprised that a Measure of this sort should come from the Liberal benches.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not the Liberal benches.

Captain EVANS: The real Liberals.

Mr. PONSONBY: I sincerely hope, when we get into the Division Lobby, that, anyhow. there will be no Liberal reunion. I entirely sympathise with the statement of the hon. and gallant Member who seeks leave to introduce this Bill that there is nothing that arouses our indignation more than a wanton act of cruelty against a dumb creature. The hideous instances he gave ought certainly to be very severely punished by fine and
by imprisonment, but we should not allow the State to be guilty of the very thing we condemn in an individual. All organised, systematic and legalised brutal treatment, for those who are guilty of brutal treatment, is a perverted notion of justice, and is contrary to the most elementary dictates of reason, besides being inhuman. If you flog a brute, you do not make him less of a brute; you make him more of a brute. It brutalises on the one side and humiliates on the other; and, incidentally, it brutalises the particular individual that you pay to do this dirty work. The doctrine of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" was all very well 2,000 years ago, but we have outgrown that sort of thing to-day, although I am sorry to find that there are people who seem to think otherwise. I had a letter this morning from the National Equine Defence League. They say:
 There are daily systematic commercial and industrial cruelties to animals which, in bulk, are far worse than the isolated, sporadic, inhuman perpetration of cruelty which sees the light of day. The repeatedly-convicted cruel person is a medical and psychological case, and should be prevented from having opportunities of expressing his Abnormality in this way, and not brutally and savagely punish after being given the opportunity,
I fell that these abnormal cases brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member

are really cases of moral deterioration. They are interesting psychologically, but in whatever way we treat them I am perfectly certain that this method is the wrong one. We must be careful in treating a degradation of humanity not further to degrade it. Brutes do exist. Unfortunately, not only have we got a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, but we have also a society for the prevention of cruelty to children. These cases must be carefully dealt with not by a slap-clash method of this sort—

Captain EVANS: On a point of Order. Is this a slap-dash method?

Mr. PONSONBY: There is rather more of the slap than the dash about it. This will be very partial in its application. There are many other instances of cruelty to animals which could be given, but we should be very careful not to pay out these brutes in their own coin. The Bill is a wrong step; it is putting back the hands of the clock and lowering out: sense of justice to the barbaric level. Even from the point of view of expediency it would defeat its own object, for the result aimed at would not be achieved.

Question put, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act, 1911."

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 109.

Division No. 68.]
AYES.
[4.18 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Clarry, Reginald George
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)


Agg Gardner, Sir James Tynts
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilbert, James Daniel


Alexander. E. E. (Leyton, East)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Goff, Sir R. Park


Apsley, Lord
Cope, Major William
Gray, Frank (Oxford)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Banbury. Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Davidson, J.C. C. (Kernel Hempstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Halstead, Major D.


Barnett. Major Richard W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Bellalrs, Commander Cariyon W.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Berry, sir George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harmsworth, Hon. E C. (Kent)


Blades. Sir George Rowland
Ednam, Viscount
Harris, Percy A.


Blundell, F. N.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Harvey, Major S. E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Hawke. John Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)


Brass, Captain W.
Erskine Bolst, Captain C.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Briggs, Harold
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hiley. Sir Ernest


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Hogge, James Myles


Bruford, R.
Flanagan, W. H.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Hood, Sir Joseph


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Hopkins, John W. W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Houlton, John Plowright


Burgees, S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Furness, G. J.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Gatbraith, J. F. W.
Hudson, Capt. A.


Cautley- Henry Strother
Ganzonl, Sir John
Hughes, H. Collingwood


Chapple, W. A.
Gates, Percy
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Singleton, J. E.


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sparkes, H. W.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Lamb. J. Q.
Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Lord


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Philipson, H. H.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Lorden, John William
Privett, F. J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Lorimer, H. D.
Raine, W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lougher, L.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Lumley, L. R.
Reiner, J. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Manville, Edward
Remnant, Sir James
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Margesson, H. D. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Wells, S. R.


Millar, J. D.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Roserson, Capt. J. E.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th.S.)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Rose, Frank H.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Winterton, Earl


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wise, Frederick


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Russell, William (Bolton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Morrison-Bell, Major A. c. (Honiton)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Murchison, C. K.
Sandon, Lord
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sextan, James



Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shipwright, Captain D.
Captain A. Evans and Mr. Shake speare.


NOES.


Adams, D.
Herriotts, J.
Paling, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hill, A.
Potts, John S.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pringle. W. M. R.


Attlee, C. R.
Irving, Dan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J


Bowdler, W. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Brotherton, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Royce, William Stapleton


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Saklatvala, S.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Salter, Dr. A.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Lawson, John James
Sanderson. Sir Frank B.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Leach, W.
Shaw, Hon. Alex (Kilmarnock)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lee, F.
Shinwell. Emanuel


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Linfield, F. C.
Simpson, J. Hope


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lowth, T.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Collison, Levi
Lunn, William
Snell, Harry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Stephen, Campbell


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
M. Entee, V. L.
Sullivan, J.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Dunnico. H.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Ede, James Chuter
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Warne. G. H.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fildes, Henry
Maxton. James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Middleton, G.
Weir, L. M.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Westwood J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Morel, E. D.
Williams. David (Swansea, E.)


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Mosley, Oswald
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muir, John W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Handle, George D.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Harney, E. A.
Nichol, Robert
Wright, W.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
O'Connor, Thomas P.



Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Lansbury.


Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Arthur Evans, Colonel Sir Charles Burn, Sir Leslie Scott, Major Despencer Robertson, Mr. Jarrett and Mr. Shakespeare.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT)BILL.

" to amend The Protection of Animals Act, 1911," presented accordingly, and read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Monday 9th April, and to be printed, [Bill 79.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Unemployment Insurance Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provisions for facilitating the working of minerals and for imposing restrictions on the working of minerals required for the support of railways, buildings, and works." [Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Minister of Health relating to Sheffield." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Sheffield Water Charges) Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to constitute the Runcorn District Water Board; to transfer to them the water undertaking of the Runcorn Urban District Council; and for other purposes." [Runcorn District Water Board Bill [Lords.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (SHEFFIELD WATER CHARGES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

RUNCORN DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (BARKING BRIDGE) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the West Somerset Mineral Railway (Abandonment) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed
with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Chesterfield Corporation Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 123, in the case of the Petition of the Sheffield Pure Ice and Cold Storage Company,' against the Bill, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

PUBLICATIONS' AND DEBATES'REPORTS.

Special Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, taken before the Select Committee in the First Session of 1922, and Appendices, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1918) AMENDMENT BILL,

" to amend the law relating to the expenses of education authorities in Scotland," presented by Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR; supported by Mr. Falconer, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Cowan, Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison, Major McKenzie Wood, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Frederick Martin, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Major Dudgeon, and Mr. Westwood; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1)BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(issue of £1,209,098 out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1923.)

The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great.-Britain and Ireland (which fund shall hereafter he styled and known as the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom) and apply towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of Mar eh, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, the sum of one million two hundred and nine thousand and ninety-eight pounds.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, stand part of the Bill."

Captain BENN: I am aware that it not possible under this Bill to discuss the propriety of expenditure, but there are some matters that can be discussed on the Appropriation Bill. Sir Erskine May lays it down that Amendments must be restricted to matters of appropriation, and it is to a matter of appropriation that I desire to refer. My contention is that when money is being used with the sanction of the Treasury for which it is not appropriated, then that is a matter to which attention can be drawn properly on this Bill. The matter, in short, is this. In the Army Estimates last year large sums of money were taken for,the arms and transport of the Army, but anyone who examines the Army Estimates will see that there was no indication whatever that these stores were to be used for expeditions of a military—

The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. This is an issue Clause, enabling the Treasury to issue certain sums of money from the Consolidated Fund for the services of the year. Any question as to the proper presentation of that is provided for by a, proper constitutional body, namely, the Public Accounts Committee, and it cannot arise in a discussion on the question that a Clause stand part of the Bill.

Captain BENN: I submit that the point which will come before the Comptroller and Auditor-General, namely, whether a Supplementary Estimate should not have been presented for the expedition in the Dardanelles, is properly discussed by the House on the Bill which confers the duty on the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and, incidentally, which guides the Comptroller and Auditor-General in deciding whether or not the money has been properly used. Although I had not the least intention of going into the merits of the question, I propose to divide the House in order that we might make a protest against what has occurred.

The CHAIRMAN: I have exercised my-own ingenuity in these matters in the past. In accordance with all former rulings, the matter cannot now be discussed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be right or wrong, but he cannot raise the matter now.

Captain BENN: Do I understand you to rule that, despite the extract which I have read from Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice," this House must wait for two years before it can call attention to the fact that money has been voted for one purpose and used for another?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not say that that is the only opportunity, but I do say that this is not the opportunity.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is not this a question of appropriation? I submit that an appropriation was made, in respect of the service for the current. year, in August last. As since then that appropriation has been altered and a Supplementary Estimate has been introduced, is it not within the power of the Committee to raise the question of the appropriation on this Supplementary Estimate, which would have afforded the ordinary constitutional way of altering the appropriation?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not act so much on the terms of the Bill as on the continuous practice of all Chairmen in ruling upon this particular matter.

Captain BENN: Forgive me for pressing my point, but it involves a very great public issue of Parliamentary control. Is it not a fact that it is quite possible that a precedent has not arisen because the impropriety has not arisen? If that is so, when has this House an opportunity of
protesting against the voting of money for one purpose and the using of it for another?

The CHAIRMAN: If the matter is of the importance that the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks, it might have been better if he had mentioned it to me beforehand, so that I might have had an opportunity of giving him a considered ruling. As it is, the hon. and gallant Member must be content with my decision.

Lieut,-Commander KENWORTHY: I apologise for not having mentioned the matter to you before, but I did not know

it would arise in this form. If we can show to you that, whereas in the past it has been the custom of this House not to debate the individual Clauses of the Bill, yet the, ordinary custom of supply being approved by this House has been departed from, would that. alter the case?

The CHAIRMAN: That would open a very wide field of discussion, if once permitted. I can rely only on the continuous precedents of the past in this matter.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 107.

Division No. 69.]
AYES.
[4.26 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, J. Q.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Ednam, Viscount
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Ellis, R. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Apsley, Lord
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lorden, John William


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lorimer, H. D.


Astbury, Lieut. Com. Frederick W.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lougher, L.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lumley, L. R.


Astor, Viscountess
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Maddocks, Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham. S.)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Manville, Edward


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Flanagan, W. H.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell. W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Berry, Sir George
Furness, G. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Blundell, F. N.
Gates, Percy
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Brass, Captain W,
Goff, Sir R. Park
Murchison, C. K.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Briggs, Harold.
Halstead, Major D.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Bruford, R.
Harrison, F. C.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hawke, John Anthony
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Penny, Frederick George


Burn. Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Butcher, Sir John George
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Philipson, H. H.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Herbert Dennis {Hertford, Watford)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Privett, F. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Raine, W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, John W. W.
Remer. J. R.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Houfton, John plowright
Remnant, Sir James


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reynolds, W. G. w.


Cope, Major William
Hudson, Capt. A.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Hughes, Collingwood
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hume, G. H.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rose, Frank H.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Doyle, N. Grattan
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Sandon, Lord
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Whitla, Sir William


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton
Wise, Frederick


Shepperson, E. W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Shipwright, Captain D.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Singleton, J. E.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)



Sparkes, H. W.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Wells, S. R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Stanley, Lord
White, Col. G, D. (Southport)
Gibbs.


NOES.


Adams, D.
Hill, A.
Ritson, J.


Adamson, Ht. Hon. William
Hogge, James Myles
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Attlee, C. R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Saklatvala, S.


Batey, Joseph
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Salter, Dr. A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sexton, James


Bowdler, W. A.
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Broad, F. A.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Brotherton, J,
Ken worthy, Lieut.-Commander J, M.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brown, James (Ayr and Buit)
Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Burgess, S.
Lawson, John James
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Leach, W
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes., Rt. Hon, John R.
Linfield, F. C.
Sullivan, J.


Collison, Levi
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duffy, T. Gavan
March, S.
Warne, G. H.


Dunnico, H.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Ede. James Chuter
Maxton, James
Webb, Sidney


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Middleton, G.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Foot, Isaac
Millar, J. D.
Weir, L. M.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Mosley, Oswald
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Muir, John W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves T.
Murray, Hon. A, C. (Aberdeen)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nichol, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Haroie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Harney, E. A.
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harris, Percy A.
Ponsonby. Arthur



Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayes, John Henry (Edge HIM)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Pringle and Mr. McLaren.


Herrietts, J.
Riley, Ben



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Clauses 2 (Issue of £171,183,700 out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1924), 3 (Power for the Treasury to borrow), and t (Short title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time "

RUHR OCCUPATION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir EDWARD GRIGG: I have to ask for the indulgence which the generous tradition of this House always gives to a maiden speech in a rather special degree this afternoon. I am not only a new Member of this House, but I am comparatively new to the dangerous art of public speaking. It is, therefore, with great diffidence that
I approach a subject of such delicacy and difficulty as that of Franco-British relations with regard to the Ruhr at the present time. I have also not had the advantage of listening to the Debates on this subject in this House. I must, therefore, apologise if I traverse ground already covered by hon. Members.
My excuse for intervening at all is that, after being very completely immersed in the details of this problem for many months on end, I have recently had an opportunity of standing back from the picture and contemplating the whole thing from a distance, contemplating it, in fact, from a point outside Europe altogether. I cannot pretend that distance lends any enchantment to the view; but distance helps one to sort things out; it simplifies things; it eliminates irrelevant details, and it makes the main features
stand out. It is simply because I have had that experience, and have recently come home through France and have caught something of the French atmosphere, that I venture to address the House on this subject this afternoon.
Before I get to the main question, I should like to say, as a Lancashire Member, one word upon the great dislocation and damage which is being done to our trade by the occupation of the Ruhr at the present time. I know of one firm which imports yarn to the value of £250,000 annually to the Ruhr. The whole of the exports of that firm are held up at the present time, and not only is it unable to put its yarn upon the German market in the Ruhr, but it is even unable to withdraw it from bond in order to dispose of it elsewhere. That is only one of many examples. The Government must know how very great. the damage is, and it. is the duty of the Members of this House, particularly of the Lancashire Members, to keep this point to the front, and I hope it may strengthen the hands of the Government in securing such consideration as they can for British traders from our French and Belgian Allies. The complete recovery of British trade is, however, not possible until this occupation of the Ruhr, and the whole policy involved in it, is definitely worked out.
The point which I wish to endeavour to put before the House this afternoon is that in the last two months we have imperceptibly passed into an entirely new phase of French policy in this question. We used to be concerned with the Treaty of Versailles, but we are now concerned with a new order of ideas, far beyond the Treaty of Versailles. To point the contrast, may I tax the patience of the House by outlining very briefly the main provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, as they used to he debated and interpreted before this new policy of the Ruhr came about?
The first essential point, relevant to this discussion, in the old Treaty of Versailles was the disarmament of Germany. As everyone knows, conscription was to be abolished in Germany. It has been abolished. As everyone knows, the German forces were to be reduced to a very small number. They have been so reduced. I believe every British expert who has been called upon to report on this question has reported that the
German disarmament is virtually complete I know that our French Allies do not agree about this, but, if proof were needed that Germany is helpless in this respect, I would invite the attention of the House to the present state of things in the Ruhr—Germany prostrate, while the heart of her industry is invaded and held by what, after all, is only a handful of armed men. I take it, therefore, that her disarmament is complete.
The next important provision in the Treaty of Versailles was reparation. The amount of reparation, in spite of many misstatements about it, was never to he fixed by this Ally or by that Ally; it was to be fixed by the Reparation Commission set up under the Treaty, and that Commission was to take into consideration Germany's capacity to pay. The guarantees established under the Treaty of Versailles were guarantees for carrying out the terms of the Treaty. There is a whole chapter in the Treaty of Versailles, headed "Guarantees," devoted to the question of guarantees. Every word in that chapter shows that the object of the guarantees was to secure the enforcement of what was actually in the Treaty of Versailles, and was not to secure the enforcement of new claims entirely outside the Treaty of Versailles brought forward at a later date. Not only that, but the chapter on "Guarantees" very carefully provided that the occupation of the left bank of the Rhine should be terminated by stages as Germany carried out her obligations, and should be completed in a period of 15 years. Those were the terms of the old Treaty of Versailles.
There is one other point about the Treaty which is perhaps worth remembering at this moment, that is the guarantee pact against invasion, which was attached to the Treaty, signed by the United States and ourselves. The object of that pact was to give France a double guarantee against unprovoked aggression by Germany over the French frontiers on French soil. There was no question of aggression in other forms; it was unprovoked invasion of French soil.
What is the position now? Neither reparation nor security, in the old form, holds the centre of the stage at all. If reparation were the only question of difference between French policy and ours, I should not despair for one moment of our coming to terms with
France over it. We have never been anything but agreed with our French Alai s on the principle of reparation. So far as there has been any difference, it has been a difference as to method. We have often had differences of that kind with our French friends before. I came across an interesting example, which occurred in the year 1878, in regard to the debts owed to European creditors by the Khedive of Egypt at the time of Disraeli's Government. At that, time our view was that the best chance of procuring money for the creditors was to give a moratorium to Egypt, to see that Egypt had a chance of reorganising and restoring her financial system, and thereby settling the payment on a definite basis and on lines which she would be able to carry out. That was the British view. I think I may best describe the French view by quoting Lord Cromer's account of it. Lord Cromer was involved indirectly in those negotiations. Lord Cromer wrote of it afterwards:
French public opinion held that the Khedive could pay his debts if he chose to do so, that the distress alleged to exist in Egypt was fictitious, and the arguments based on the impoverishment of the country were fabricated in order to throw dust in the eyes of the public and to excite humanitarian sympathy where no sympathy was deserved.
That, I think, presents a very close parallel to the argument of our French Allies at the present time. We ultimately gave up our view, and took the French view of the matter for the time being. Afterwards we followed our own course with admirable results; but for the time being we followed the French view. Why? I will again quote Lord Cromer:
 The reason is not far to seek. The Berlin Congress was lust about to sit to regulate the situation arising from the recent Russo-Turkish 'War. It was necessary to conciliate the French. The French initiative was therefore followed.
If you substitute the Conference of Lausanne for the Congress of Berlin, and substitute Germany for Egypt, you have a very close parallel, I think, in that historical episode.
We have, had differences of this kind with France before, and I believe we could settle them now. If the mind of France were centred on the question of reparations, I am personally convinced that she would have adopted a very different attitude towards the many prac-
tical and business-like proposals which have been made on this subject during past months. I think she would have addressed herself with more courtesy to the Conference of International Bankers, which met in Paris about June of last year. I think she would have paid more attention to the very broad proposals put forward by the Coalition Government at the London Conference in August of that year. I am quite certain, too, that she would have adopted a very different attitude towards the proposals put. forward by the present Government in Paris last January. I am not going to pretend that we all of us think those proposals were put forward in the best possible form. It was surely a mistake, for the sake of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, to alienate our Belgian Allies. Four or five million pounds is really nothing at, all in the settlement of a great international account like this. There were other points in which perhaps our position might have been more tactfully put; but, after all, they were points which could have been modified, and, indeed, entirely removed, in discussion. The French Government, however, refused to discuss those proposals at all, and I think that is adequate evidence that reparation is no longer in the centre of French thought.
The same conclusion, I think, is to be derived from the fact that. the French Government has not considered the offer put forward by the German Government to refer the question of what Germany can pay, and how she can pay, to an impartial International Commission. That is a proposal in very close accordance with what the American Secretary of State, Mr. Hughes, proposed not many weeks ago, and I think it offers an admirable ground, if it can only be adopted, for a fair settlement. I am afraid, however, that the French Government has no intention of considering that proposal, even though it was reiterated, I believe, from Berlin yesterday. The French Prime Minister—I am only quoting newspaper reports, but I have no reason to believe them untrue—stated yesterday to the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Chamber that the occupation of the Ruhr was economically unprofitable. I think that statement is sufficient to show that, as the occupation continues, it is not the economic aspect of that occupation which is principally-occupying the French mind now. Obviously, the main driving power of French
policy is elsewhere, and that is what we have to face. The central motive of French policy at the present time is not security or reparation. It certainly is not security in the old form which we used to discuss. It is security under an entirely new definition, and that is the problem with which we have to deal. It takes us into an absolutely new region of politics. It takes us, I venture to say, into a dangerous and volcanic region. When you look back in the face of the proposals and speeches which are now filling the French newspapers, when you look back from the policy which is being advocated now, I am bound to say that I view with astonishment the moderation which the British statesmen of that time managed to import into the Treaty of Versailles.
5.0 P.M.
Let me illustrate the change of ideas which has come over the French mind in this respect. M. Poincaré yesterday made an important declaration to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber. He declared that the French would not leave Essen until every penny of German reparation had been paid. I am not arguing whether these declarations are right or wrong, whether they are wise or unwise. The point is that these are the facts with which we have to deal, and that these arc provisions not contained in the Treaty of Versailles. They are absolutely foreign to the Treaty of Versailles; they are of a new description altogether. They confront us with an absolutely new problem. M. Poincare not only said that the occupation of Essen would be maintained for an indefinite period, because France has refused to accept the verdict of the Reparation Commission and has herself become the sole arbiter as to what Germany is to pay. He has not only declared that Essen is to be occupied for an indefinite period, but he says that the costs of the occupation of the Ruhr are to be charged in the same way as the costs of the occupation of the left bank of the Rhine. That may be fair or unfair, but it is not in the Treaty of Versailles. It is another new claim entirely outside the Treaty. Under the Treaty of Versailles again the free navigation of the Rhine is secured to all countries by an international Commission, the Rhine Navigation Commission. The functions of that Commission have been entirely abrogated by the French and
Belgian occupation of the Ruhr. The Commission is to meet next week. What it is to discuss I do not know, because the navigation of the Rhine is now controlled by our French and Belgian Allies. That may be right or wrong, but it is outside the Treaty of Versailles.
I would give one other example of how French policy is being shaped at the present time. I will not go to extremist sources, but I will quote a French publicist who has always been moderate in his views and friendly to this country, and who seldom puts forward suggestions or proposals without knowing that they are representative of the views of France. M. Phillippe Millet has contributed several articles to "L'Europe Nouvelle," and I want to call particular attention to one which appeared in the issue of 10th March. It is headed:
 What might be the scheme of peace? 
I think that title in itself deserves some attention. At the present time we apparently are not discussing the peace which has been already made. We are not discussing the Treaty which was framed by all of us. We are discussing the terms of a new peace, and a new Treaty to be made after a new war. That is the situation. What does M. Phillippe Millet say are the essential requirements of France? He lays down that France should secure a permanent international control of the left bank of the Rhine and a permanent international control of the Rhine railways, with France and Belgium predominant in the international body which exercises this control. He also demands the permanent cessation of the Saar mines to France, and the annexation of the Saar territory to the Rhineland, so that the Saar territory is to come under this international control on which France and Belgium would have predominance. I believe the opinions I have quoted are representative opinions. I think I have stated them without any prejudice. I have not been arguing whether they are wise or unwise. I merely argue that they constitute a new situation altogether, and it is with that new situation we have got to deal.
How are we to deal with it.? I yield to nobody in my sentiments of friendship for France; I believe every Member of this House would a thousand times rather agree with France than disagree with France. I believe, when you come to
consider this question, that I am like every other Member of this House in feeling a strong natural inclination to agree with France, and much more than a natural prejudice against Germany. That is the state of mind in which I approach this question. But you cannot frame the policy of a great Empire in an issue of this kind on grounds of sentiment alone. You must be sure that the interests of your people, that their sense of right and wrong, and that the aims of your policy will, as years go on, justify the policy which your sentiment calls upon you to carry out. Otherwise, if the national conscience and interest begin to run contrary to sentiment, it is not sentiment that will carry the day. I think, therefore, it is part of the loyalty we owe to France to be perfectly frank about what we can do and what we cannot do at the present time.
What does this new policy advocated by France mean? In substance, it means the alienation of Germans and German territory from Germany. It means, if this country were to support France, that this country is to undertake an obligation to interfere in the internal affairs of Germany, and restrict German sovereignty for all time. The Rhineland and the Saar, as everybody knows, are ethnically German. The Rhine railways are a great artery of the German industrial system. The Ruhr is the heart of industrial Germany. International control in any form over these German territories and that, part of the German people must mean a denationalisation of them. It means they are in some way to be separated from Germany and put under a foreign sovereignty. It means, I believe, an inevitable explosion in the years to come. You might as well put the industry of Lancashire and the Manchester Ship Canal under some form of international control, and imagine you could do so without interfering in some way with the sovereignty of this Parliament. Paper formulas are useless to cover these realties. If the wise inert of ancient Pompeii had been warned beforehand that an eruption was about to take place and had thought of preventing that eruption by covering the crater of Vesuvius with a film of paper, they would not have been more foolish than the people who
imagine you can prevent the eruption of national feeling in a matter of this kind by diplomatic formulas of any kind.
I see a great difficulty in reconciling the British point of view and sense of right with this policy now being advocated by our French Allies. It is contrary to our declared war aims. It is contrary to the Treaty of Versailles; it is a sure cause of future wars, and it would mean an undertaking by this country of an obligation to interfere with the internal affairs of a European State that this country has never undertaken before. If we wish to look for a wiser policy, we may find it in the policy pursued by Castlereagh and Canning after the Napoleonic Wars. If we follow the line taken by Castlereagh and Canning, we shall, moreover, be following a policy which led to the first great example of co-operation between the British Empire and the United States.
I do not ask the Government to make any declaration on this question this afternoon. I only ask two things: first, that they should consult the Dominions upon the whole issue fully and consult them betimes. The Dominions were part of the British Empire Delegation which made the Treaty of Versailles. Their signatures are appended to the Treaty. Not only that., but the Dominions were at the Imperial Conference of 1921 and the policy which was followed in the months immediately after that—the policy, for instance, which took shape at Cannes—had been agreed to definitely by the Imperial Conference. Since then the situation in Europe has changed. The Government here has changed. The Government in Canada has changed. The Government in Australia has changed. There is, therefore, an overwhelming argument for consultation and consultation betimes, because we shall certainly be called upon to give some definition of British policy in the next few weeks—long, I fear, before the Imperial Conference can meet, as we hope it will, before the end of the year. I ask, therefore, that the Government shall give a pledge to consult the Dominions fully now. I ask them also to be ready with some declaration on behalf of the British Empire within the next few weeks. They arc not only the representatives of Great Britain, but the trustees of the British Empire, and while we do not wish to press them for a declaration here
and now, I hope when the time comes, as it is bound to come before long, they will be able to show that the British Empire has a mind and a voice of its own.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sure the House agrees with me when I say that we are delighted to welcome so promising a recruit to our Debates as my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken. Whether we agree or do not agree with everything he has said, we agree at least in this, that he has made a contribution by his well-informed and arresting speech which is seldom equalled by Members speaking for the first time. I intervene to ask the Government one or two questions. I suppose everyone realises, and perhaps more so since the hon. and gallant Member has just spoken, how grave is the position at the present moment. The country is uneasy and anxious about our relations with France. The country has been accustomed to consider that she was an ally of France, and that France would be found working alongside of us with a parallel policy. Ever since the Armistice we have been on terms of the greatest friendship with France and our other European Allies. It is quite true that from time to time we have differed, but we have always managed to bring our differences to a conference, and to settle those differences at a conference so that our action might be joint action and not separate action. We have always succeeded in doing that till last January, and since last January separate action has been taken by France, and the distance between our paths seems to be widening. In France the position is not much different. Some newspapers and some writers in the French newspapers have always been inclined to view our actions with suspicion, but, on the other hand, Great Britain has had active friends in the French Press who have stood by us continuously for a long time. Those same writers have within the last few months been showing suspicions of our motives and holding us up, not as the Allies of France, but as the enemies of France who are standing in the way of France when she desires reparation, and standing in the way of France when she desires a reasonable security for the future. That is the position in France.
What is the position over here? The speech just made by the hon. and gallant Member voiced a feeling which is unfortunately spreading in Great Britain. There have been speeches in this House and certainly in the country, which have shown that the speakers contemplated not continued friendship with France but a period of hostility. Surely that is the gravest possible position, and I ask the Government what steps they are taking to remove the suspicion which is at the base of the feeling of tension existing between the two countries? The best way, in my opinion, to remove that suspicion is for both this country and France to appreciate that there is little or no ground for the suspicion of France. France suspects that we stood in the way of her getting reparation. We have not done so. On the contrary, this country has been prepared to support every practical proposal made. She thinks we arc depriving her of the security to which she is entitled. Not only have we not done so, but when America was not able to confirm an undertaking to act jointly with us in guaranteeing French soil from aggression, we ourselves at Cannes offered, alone, to stand in the breach. Why should not these facts be known? Why should not the papers relating to that offer of security by us to France and the terms of the offer be published? Why should not the proceedings taken on that offer be published, so that the people of this country and of France might know exactly what was offered. It would be worth almost anything in the state of tension which now exists to remove any ground of suspicion. The publication of these papers and the spreading of the knowledge of what was actually done, would, in my belief, remove many of the grounds of suspicion. As regards the reparation question, the papers relating to the abortive Conferences in December and January last have been published. Why not publish the papers relating to the Conference in London in August of last year? These papers could not have been published while the late Government was in power, because at any moment a further sitting of that same Conference was to take place. It did take place in December and was completed in January. As soon as it was completed, surely all the papers—not those relating to the December and January Conferenes only,
but also those relating to the August Conference — ought to have been published.
I now ask the Government to do so, and in this matter I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the last Government who are not Members of the present Government., and I believe that those Members of the present Government who were in the last Government naturally wish these papers to be published. I believe if they were published it would be seen that efforts were made by Great Britain to deal with the question of reparation, and the offers made by Great Britain to France to support her in every practical proposal would, in themselves, tend to remove some part of the suspicion which now exists. The proposals made in August last were of extreme importance. We have been charged—I have seen it in the French Press—with trying to induce or compel France to give a moratorium for which she would get nothing in return. What Was the proposal of August last? It was that a moratorium to the end of the year 1922 should be granted in respect of arrears of payments then due by Germany, and that it should be extended only upon condition that Germany should take steps to stabilise her currency; to balance her Budget, to pass legislation preventing the flight of capital from Germany and to grant autonomy to the Reichstag. These four conditions were really preliminaries to putting the financial and economic position of Germany on a basis which would enable her to pay reparation on any large scale. Until that is done it is useless to expect to receive any large sums from Germany. What was proposed last August was that there should be a short moratorium to enable Germany to give proof of her bonâ fidesby taking the preliminary steps which would put her in a position to go further.
If those papers are published the charge against us that we were trying to protect Germany and make France give up her rights, will, I think undoubtedly, be shown to be entirely false. The moratorium, if it. ever had been granted, was after all not to be a moratorium such as was proposed in January of four years. It was proposed that it should be a moratorium of two years and even then, not a complete moratorium, because the deliveries in
kind were to continue and the proceeds of the 26 per cent. export tax were to continue to be collected and either paid over to those entitled to reparations or held as a security for future payments. When these proposals are examined I believe it will be found that both French public opinion and British public opinion will free Great Britain from any blame on either of the charges which the French Press makes against her. France herself, had she been able to accept those proposals, would be in receipt of quite a considerable sum on account of reparation. After all, her share of the deliveries in kind would be worth something like £20,000,000 a year and her 52 per cent. of the export tax even at last year's rate of exports from Germany would amount to something like £30,000,000 a year, and if this other measure—this economic and financial measure to which I alluded just now—were honestly carried out by Germany there is very little doubt her exports would rapidly increase and the sums payable from the export tax would also rapidly increase. If that plan of August had been carried out both France and ourselves would have been receiving a considerable sum on account. of the amount due to us for reparation. I emphasise the plan of August last, although it was refused, for this reason, that it may be found in the future that progress upon the lines of the August proposal is the true progress and that which is likely finally to bring about a solution of this very difficult question. I ought to add, that in the proposals which were agreed to so far as the Allies were concerned there was to be some supervision over the German Customs and supervision over the German Budget —two very substantial securities which ought to have helped in the future.
Of course, it may be asked why all these proposals were not accepted by France. Then, just. as now, there was the difficulty that France wanted to put a Customs ring round the Ruhr and on the left bank of the Rhine. She made other proposals such as taking a proportion of the capital of the factories working on the left bank of the Rhine. All these proposals were considered by Allied experts, not by politicians, and the experts who dealt with them as economic propositions examined them from the point of view of practicability and from the point of view of the revenue obtainable
from them and a report was made. That report should be published, because these are the very things which the people of this country have in their minds to-day. One often hears it said in conversation, "Well, Germany is very prosperous. She has large numbers of works and factories. Why cannot we get some of it?" These questions were examined by the experts and a report was made upon them, and it would be wise, in my judgment, if the people of this country and of France were allowed to see the result of this examination. A proposal was made by France to manage the Ruhr mines. Our experts, and all of us, pointed out that there would be great difficulty in doing so. We did not think the output of the mines would be increased. On the contrary, we said that it would be much more difficult to induce the German miners to work successfully under Allied management than under their own system and that such an attempt on the part of the Allies would inevitably end in reducing production. That was said last August, and I think the result of the occupation of the Ruhr has amply justified the forecast then made. Why should not the public know that? Why should it he left to me now to state very imperfectly some of the things that were discussed in August last and some of the reasons for the course which we took? The position between France and Great Britain is so serious that every possible information should be given to the peoples of both countries.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why did you not give it at the time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member was not in the House when I explained. The Conference was adjourned. It had agreed to a certain number of things, and there were certain other things not agreed to. It adjourned, with the object of meeting again. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, the Election came, and the Government changed, but the adjourned Conference was held in December and again in January, and what I suggest is that now that there has been published a Blue Book on the December and January Conferences, there can be no reason why the August Conference should not also be published; and it is material and important, because I
believe the proposals that were made in August are much more likely of ultimate acceptance by the Allies than the proposals made in January. I am not a bit surprised that the proposals made in January were not accepted. One of them was made to Belgium, that she should give up her priority. Belgium will not give up her priority, and nobody who has ever been in touch with Belgium, nobody who has ever discussed the question of reparations with Belgium, will ever imagine for a moment that Belgium is going to give up her priority. One of the conditions of January was that she should do so, and that would ensure the rejection of the proposal by Belgium. Other proposals to France seem to me not to give as good security as Prance was offered in the previous August, so that I am not really surprised that, on the security ground, France refused the offer of January.
I hope that along the lines of the August proposals there is still a possibility of arriving at a settlement., and I ask the Government whether they are prepared to open up negotiations afresh upon those lines. I regret the absence of the Prime Minister, and more especially the cause, and I do not know whether, in his absence, the Government are prepared to say what their policy is. I know the Prime Minister, speaking in February last, stated that no policy was better than a bad policy. That, of course, is a profoundly true though simple statement, but it does not conclude the question. That was in February last, and since then things have not got better, but worse. I ask the Government now whether they cannot make some statement. It cannot be right that we should sit idly by while suspicion is growing, while feeling between ourselves and our Allies is hardening into antagonism, and while the seeds of wax are ripening. If we cannot get a statement of policy today, can we at least have a promise that the Papers for which I have asked, relating to the offer of a pact with France, the papers relating to the August Conference, shall be published, so that the people of this country shall be able to remove at least some of their suspicions, and that the people of France also will see that we have not stood in their way, either on the matter of security or of any practical steps for the recovery of reparations?

Mr. ASQUITH: I desire to associate myself to the full with the congratulations which were offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), who has just sat down, to the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir E. Grigg), who opened the Debate. I have been a great many years in this House, and I have heard a great many maiden speeches, some good, many indifferent, and a few frankly bad, but I am not using the language of flattery at all when I say to my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to do so, that I have rarely heard a maiden speech which, both in form and in substance, seemed to me to promise a more hopeful and distinguished Parliamentary career. I am not saying for a moment that I agree with everything h said, though in the main I did. What I should single out as peculiarly interesting features in his admirable speech are his., wealth of knowledge, his avoidance of unnecessary verbiage, and the modest strength with which he presented a case strong in itself, but which suffered nothing from his advocacy of it.
I have risen, not to take part in any general review of what is a most grave and disquieting situation, but to put, if I may, one or two questions to the Government, to which I think we are entitled to an answer, and which are very necessary for the information of the public mind, both here and outside this country. Let me say that I entirely subscribe to the request which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester that we should have, in the form of Papers laid upon the Table, the fullest possible disclosure of what has been going on during the last two years. We have had Papers describing the proceedings of December and January last, bat I do not think we have anything in the nature of a collective and illuminating narrative as to the course of the negotiations that have taken place during these last twelve, fifteen, it may be eighteen, months. I can see no reason why they should any longer be withheld from Parliament or from the country, and I entirely endorse the appeal on that. point which has been made by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down. There are one or two points, apart from that, upon which I think it would be well that the Government should give us their views. A very remarkable statement was made yesterday to the Foreign Affairs
Committee of the Reichstag by the German Foreign Minister, Dr. Rosenberg, and I do not think it has received quite the degree of publicity which it ought to have done in our own Press. I have been furnished with a Reuter's telegram, which gives a fuller and, I think, both a more accurate and more adequate view than, perhaps, would be gained from anything we have seen in the Press, and I want to call the attention of the Government particularly to one or two points in this statement:
Dr. Rosenberg stated "—
I am reading from Reuter—
that the Government's position on the Reparation question was that an International Commission of business men should determine as soon as possible three points: (1) the extent to which Germany had already fulfilled her obligations; (2) her ability to meet them in the future; (3) the manner in which they could be met.
They are three all-important questions. He continued:
These questions would be determined by such a Commission, or any similar impartial body of experts, on which Germany and France would be represented on terms of full equality and full rights. If this or a similar way should he taken, the Government would be prepared to sound the international money market with a view to obtaining the highest possible loan, which would amply provide for any guarantee which the loan syndicate might think necessary. This money would he handed over to France or the Allies as an immediate advance in cash.
Then he proceeds to say:
Without expressing any request or desire, the Government has placed these views before such Powers as are principally interested in the state of Europe, which are not concerned directly in the Ruhr conflict.
I should like to know from my right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench whether these views have been laid before His Majesty's Government; if so, when, and by what form of communication. I should like to know, further, whether His Majesty's Government can tell us, in confirmation of what is said here, that they have been placed before the other Powers, at any rate such of the other Powers as are not directly concerned in this Ruhr adventure. Italy would be one, the United States of America would be another. I should like, further, to know whether His Majesty's Government if, as I am informed, they have for some time been in possession of these views, have taken any steps, by diplomatic
negotiations or communications or otherwise, to bring themselves into concert with the other Powers concerned, or have we been during this really very important new departure, and are we now still, committed to an attitude of what I may call benevolent impotence; an attitude which I think, having regard to the gravity of the conditions and the enormous and possibly disastrous possibilities of the near future, is one not altogether worthy of a great Power which has played so large a part in all these things and which cannot, either morally or politically, disinterest itself from their ultimate solution. That is the first point, on which I think we are entitled to get some information.
I should like to deal with another matter. As I say, I am in an interrogative mood, and I am not proposing for the moment any constructive policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear "] I am in an interrogative mood, and I think I am entitled to be so, as this is the Consolidated Fund Bill, and we are separating for our Easter Recess. A great deal has been said about reparation on the one side, security upon the other, and the relative importance, in the view of France and, possibly, of Belgium, of those two aspects of the situation. Of late there has been introduced into this discussion a. phrase, "the demilitarisation of the Rhineland" or some indefinite area in that part of the world. The House, I am sure, is aware, though I am not quite sure that the people outside are aware, of how that matter stands under the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles contains two sets of provisions, one set of a permanent and the other of a temporary and provisional kind. The permanent provisions as to the left bank of the Rhine are comprised in the 42nd, 43rd and 44th Articles of the Treaty. What do they provide? They provide for a prohibition to Germany—not a temporary, but a permanent prohibition—
 to maintain or construct any fortifications either on the left bank of the Rhine. or on the right hank to the west of a line drawn.50 kilometres to the east of the Rhine "—
and within that area they are equally prohibited from
 the maintenance and the assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily, and military manœuvres of any kind.
Article 44 provides in very remarkable language, in case Germany violates in any manner whatever the provisions of the preceding Articles, that
 she shall be regarded as committing a hostile act "—
and a hostile act, be it observed, not against France, but—
 against the Powers signatory of the present Treaty, and as calculated to disturb the peace of the world.
I do not think it is wholly immaterial to add to that summary of the provisions for the real demilitarisation of the territory from which France would naturally be most apprehensive of a possible incursion or invasion, that by Article 213, which was one of the general Articles:
 So long as the present Treaty remains in force, Germany undertakes to give every facility for any investigation which the Council of the League of Nations, acting if need he by a majority vote, may consider necessary.
In my view, that means that the provisions of what I may call the demilitarisation Articles are provisions which the League of Nations is entitled to see, by inspection and by supervision, carried into effect. Therefore, France did receive —people do not realise this sufficiently—under those terms of the Treaty, very adequate security against possibilities of future danger from Germany, by the double provision that even the holding of military manœuvres within the area so delimited on the part of Germany would be regarded as a hostile act by all the Powers signatory of the Treaty, and, at the same time, the League of Nations was entrusted with the duty of seeing that those other provisions are observed. That is a totally different thing from the temporary occupation by the Allied Powers of those various zones of which we have been hitherto in military possession. That occupation ceases in 1935, unless, when that time comes, there is adequate and reasonable ground for fearing future aggression either of Germany or of France, as the case may be. It is quite true that France had not, by the Treaty of Versailles, but by the collateral pact that was entered into between her and ourselves and the United States, a large additional and very material safeguard. That safeguard disappears through no fault of ours, and, therefore, I have always thought, and I still press upon the
consideration of Parliament that she cannot be placed in the same position of material—still more, perhaps, of senti-material and moral—security that she would have been, if that pact had been carried out; and, unless something is substituted for it, she gets—as I think she ought to get, as well as Germany and the people of the countries whose future territorial arrangements depend on the Treaty of Versailles are entitled to get—the assurance of a conjoint, solid, international guarantee of all those who, at any rate, are parties to the League of Nations.
If that be so; if this can be brought home; if these proposals have been made by Germany, and are open to consideration, we cannot help asking ourselves the question—I put it not in an ungenerous spirit; France has no older or better friend in this country than I am—why are things proceeding on the lines they are? For what purpose—and here, again, I address an inquiry to the Government —for the enforcement of what demand, are the French continuing and extending the occupation of the Ruhr and the adjacent country? Surely this ought to be plainly stated, so that it can be universally understood. Is it for the purpose of seeking to obtain from Germany, in the shape of reparation, £6.600,000,000, which was the sum estimated, as everybody now realises, under conditions which have become practically obsolete? Have the Government now got, or sought to get, from France, and distinct or definite statement whether that is her object? The continuance and extension of this operation, quite apart from the question of reparation, quite apart from the question of material and strategic security, is, if it is to continued on these lines, leading France into a position where, I regret—I hesitate to say it, hut it has to be said—she cannot carry this country with her.
What does it mean? It is no good blinking the fact. It is no good pretending; that realities are not realities. What does it mean? It means, or might mean, the creation, for an indefinite time, of a new Alsace-Lorraine situation. Peoples who, not only by race, but by historic association, and tradition and language, by all ties, domestic and communal, are German people, would during that time be
to all intents and purposes subject to an alien rule. That would be an appalling result, after all that has taken place since the beginning of the War—a war which was fought, as we all know, and many of us have proclaimed from the very beginning, as a war of emancipation and a war to prevent the domination of small States by large States, and the incorporation of alien populations in federations or in sovereignties to which they could never be honestly and genuinely loyal. It would be the most tragic commentary on wasted opportunities that history could afford, if you were going to set up again a system which it was our object to destroy, and to which we had hoped we had finally I put an end.
I earnestly hope that does not represent the goal to which French policy is tending. It would be a terrible thing, if we should sever the Entente, which has subsisted now for more than 20 years with the best possible results, as I believe, to. civilisation, and which, I hope and pray, may still continue, whatever friction and misunderstanding arises—it would be a terrible thing if that should have to come to an end. I do trust that, with this declaration on the part of Germany, and with-the assurance which we ought to be prepared to give, we shall do everything in our power to strengthen and to supplement the safeguards which are necessary for the future territorial security of France herself, and that the Government, will he able to give us to-day some hope that the situation is not so grave as it seems, and that they, at any rate, are not sitting with folded hands, but striving with all the power and authority which they possess, if they choose to exercise it, not only to re-establish to the full the Entente between France and ourselves, but to help along the road towards establishing in Europe a situation of stability and permanent peace.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I wish to associate myself with what my right hon. Friend who has just sat down has said about. the gravity of the situation. The hon. and gallant Member for Oldham (Sir E. Grigg) who started the Debate told the House that, after having been for a long time right in the middle of it, he had had the opportunity of withdrawing himself,
and of viewing the matter from a distance. He said that from that point of view he could assure the House that it did not give enchantment to the view. I can assure the House, too, that those of us who during the last three or four weeks. have been right through this matter, and have been keeping in the closest touch with the French, Belgian, and German public opinion find the same lack of enchantment on the very close view that we have had to take of the situation. I hope the Government will accede to the request of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite and publish more papers, but I would warn the House that the publication of papers is not nearly enough. The right hon. Gentleman himself gave an illustration of how inadequate the mere publication of papers may be. The other day I met one or two of the leading members of the Belgian Chamber of Deputies, and I found that they were all under the impression that the offer made by the British Government in Paris last January was a pure and simple suggestion, that Belgian priority should be abandoned. I disputed the point with them. They assured me that I was wrong. When, however, the facts were given, and accurate statements quoted, it was discovered that they knew nothing about it. What was the proposal? I find it on page 117 of the Blue Book. This is the statement:
 So far, however, as the British Government is concerned it will be quite prepared to allow the existing priority to stand if the other Allies agree.
That is a very important qualification. My only reason for reading it now is that I wish to draw the attention of the House to this fact: that this is not merely a question of publicity through the ordinary channels of the newspapers and other publications; if we are going to understand public opinion in France and Belgium, and if public opinion in France and Belgium is to understand us, we must do something more.
We, the Labour party, proposed the other day that the Parliaments should come more into contact one with the other. We saw quite plainly that the House of Commons was not prepared to agree to that Having been compelled to abandon that idea, we ourselves got into close contact with the corresponding bodies in the French, Belgian and Italian Parliaments. One of the first-
fruits of that discussion, I am glad to say, was to remove many misunderstandings and to help very materially to spread the light in certain sections at any rate; we could not do more! But the true opinion of France, Belgium and Italy now regards the position in this country in a certain light, and the fruit of that is the statement to which my right hon. Friend referred, that the Foreign Minister of Germany, addressing the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, on the invitation of those who belong to a similar party to ourselves, made clear for the first time since the occupation of the Ruhr, the general position—and I emphasise that—which the German Government occupy in relation to this matter. I feel perfectly certain that if we would only pursue these methods, we could bring public opinion to a further state of enlightenment. We can first of all enlighten the public opinions of the various countries, and then bring the peoples of the various countries together, and all these horrible and menacing clouds that are hanging so dark and low over our heads at this moment will, we trust., totally disappear.
A great deal of the difficulty we have to face now is the silence of our Government. I find that opinion held by practically everybody of good will and good intentions amongst our Allies. "Why," they say, "will not our Government speak?" This policy of France has been going on now for roughly two months—that is the occupation of the Ruhr.

Commander BELLAIRS: Seventy-seven days.

Mr. MacDONALD: It was, we are told, first of all started to secure reparations. It was soon plain that reparations could not he obtained in that way. Not only that, but. it was soon evident that if this policy was to be pursued, given the very best of will on the part of Germany, the most honest intention on the part of Germany, this policy was going to make it impossible for Germany to pay the reparations she would be prepared to pay. I ask for the official figures of the results of the occupation in terms of reparations. The December figures on which the defalcation was announced exhibited 80 per cent. of payment. The January figures, a part of which month was worked without any trouble, and the latter of which was
worked under occupation conditions, only produced 40 per cent. In February the production and delivery only amounted to 47 per cent. March production and delivery is not going to be very much better. Everyone who understands the situation there sees what appears to be perfectly plain before us, that in the Ruhr the French and the Germans are entering upon a contest in which neither of them means to allow an end until one or the other is beaten down to his knees. It is nonsense to say that the German workman in the Ruhr is being egged on by support from outside. We have sent there very competent inquirers, very capable men, to see what is going on, and to report to us the result, and there is not the least doubt that what is being done in the Ruhr, the industrial and political action now being taken in the Ruhr, is spontaneous, and comes from the will, intention, and determination of the people themselves, and it will not be ended until it is absolutely impossible for them to carry it on one day longer.
On the other hand, the French show no signs of weakening, no signs of yielding. The question now comes to be: How long is this deadlock going to last? We get estimates of three months, four months, some of them six months, but whenever one comes to discuss the situation with anyone in authority they agree, one and all, in saying: "Why does not the British Government state where it stands?" I would remind my right hon. Friend that when a tendency like this is in operation silence helps neither side. It deprives the silent country of credit and respect. It does nothing whatever to protect the interests that the silent country ought to protect. I do not know whether it is quite the right thing here to refer to the admirable work of those who are defending our interests and the honour of our country at the present time. Under the circumstances, however, I think it would be less than our duty and less than fair play for this House to refrain from giving a gesture of grateful thanks to General Godley and Mr. Pigott for what they have been doing in the interests of this country in an exceptionally trying situation. They have to stand between two fires. They have to steer a way, which they have done with extraordinary genius, between the various difficulties. I do not believe that we could have got
two men who would have performed that almost impossible task with greater and more conspicuous success than the gentlemen I have named. But I do not think the Government has treated them fairly. I know perfectly well what are the difficulties with which the Government are confronted. But nine-tenths of them are, I think, of their own making. When you start a policy of silence, when are you going to break it? You cannot do it! The only thing that the Government can do now consistent with its own dignity is to wait until the crisis comes. Surely we have got a different function from that? It is not consistent either with the responsibility or the duty of this country to allow this struggle, this grim, determined struggle, to go on in the Ruhr week after week, month after month, and have nothing material to say about it until one or the other faints and fails! What right have we then to come in either with advice or a demand that we should be consulted in the solution?
I think the Government ought to have seen right at the beginning that its duty was to say something defining its own position quite clearly. Its present position is not a position at all. It is merely drift. A neutral position is of little use. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs shakes his head. He has allowed the explanation and the excuse about reparations to go on. As my hon. Friend has said, quite truly, it is not only reparation that is going, but if you discuss this question now with French publicists you will find that they are not standing upon securities. The whole controversy has moved from off that plane, and is moving on to a totally different plane—I will call it crudely, and with, I trust, sufficient accuracy for hon. Members to understand what is in my mind—the crude plane of imperialism, of possession, of domination!
All the time our Government takes up the position of benevolent neutrality, and still, apparently, imagines that benevolent neutrality is a position at all. It is nothing of the kind. The Government could have spoken on one or two points. It could, first of all, have spoken perfectly definitely about trade, and I venture to say that it has not. It is perfectly true that it has made a protest here and a protest there, and has negotiated and put very heavy burdens upon our Cologne representatives regarding trade; but it has never said quite clearly," We are
not going to allow our trade to be hampered." It has never said in public, so far as I know, it has never said to the French—and I want a perfectly clear, definite and unequivocal statement saying, "We insist upon the right of our traders to use the Rhine, to have their contracts fulfilled, to be subject to no impediments to which we ourselves do not agree. We stand for the same conditions after the occupation as before the occupation," and put in such a way that everyone understands where we are. Certainly, the correspondence one has with the Chamber of Commerce in Cologne does not bear out the suggestion that I see my right hon. Friend is making when he rather disagrees with what I am stating at the present time.
There is another point. We ought to have insisted before now on some know-]edge of the French intentions. It was our duty; it should have been done; and, had it been done, the sinister developments that have gone on since would have been impossible. What is the position to-day? What is really happening is that now the tide has turned so far as opinion is concerned. In Germany, the Government is facing an increasingly difficult position. Unemployment is beginning to spread, and in Saxony, in particular, unemployment has serious political consequences. Therefore, we have in Germany now a Government ready to move, if the opportunity is given to it for moving. I am glad to see that we have been helpful in giving it the opportunity, and the statement that was made yesterday is a beginning. I do hope that the Government is going to recognise the statement made yesterday. I hope the Government is going to recognice it as a basis, at any rate, for negotiations, for inquiry, for sounding, as the beginning of a settlement that will ultimately be regarded as satisfactory. What hope can this country have of any settlement of reparations unless a settlement is come to by an impartial outside committee? A committee of business men has been suggested. What hope has France for reparations from Germany now of any importance or of any size at all, unless Germany gets the international financial hacking that will eventuate in a loan which will enable Germany to make a settlement? France, ourselves, and Belgium cannot possibly hope to get
reparations to any substantial extent from Germany unless it be by so changing the economic condition of Germany and the political condition of Germany that both will bear the issue of a loan.
The statement made yesterday gives some promise of that. I hope the Government is going to take that. statement as a promising beginning, and to recognise it at least in such a way that this deadlock in the Ruhr is going to he solved. Then, as regards Belgium, what is happening in Belgium is this. I think the Prime Minister—whom we all regret is not here to-day, and the reason for whose absence we regret more particularly —told us once that M. Theunis left Paris, after supporting France, under the impression that he was going to his doom, and that, very much to his surprise, when he got back to Brussels he found that the country was behind him. That is perfectly true, but the change of opinion in Belgium since then has been simply enormous. Belgium to-day is more and more united against the policy, both economic and political, of the Ruhr, and would be only too glad if an opportunity were given for a reconsideration of the whole matter from a new point of view and with a new idea of a settlement. It is exactly the same in Italy. Signor Mussolini supported France because France promised him a More prompt and more ample delivery of coal. He has got none, or, if he has got any, he is getting it in pounds avoirdupois instead of in scores of tons. And so to-day there is exactly the same change in Italian public opinion as.there is in Belgian and French public opinion.
It is perfectly true, as I think the hon. and gallant Member who opened the Debate said, that there are certain publicists who have been writing in favour of this country—publicists like Philip Millet —who now are writing rather against us. Yes, but on the other hand there is a change in other quarters. There was a bye-election this week to fill the seat in the Senate occupied by the late M. Ribot, and at that bye-election the trend of French public opinion was magnificently shown, for the Republican of the Left was returned by a large vote, comparatively—because Senate votes are not large—and the runner-up was a member of the Socialist party, who had two-thirds of the votes recorded for the Republican of the Left. These are things which show
how the wind blows. I hope to hear the Debate in the Chamber of Deputies myself on Friday, when the Chamber is considering the question that we are considering now, and I feel perfectly certain that that Debate, whatever the result is going to be in the Division Lobby—and it may be that the result in the Division Lobby will be very much the result which has shown itself hitherto, and those who know French politics, and know the Division Lobbies of the Chamber of Deputies, know perfectly well that the day before the Revolution the Government vote is going to be as big as ever it was—I am perfectly certain that the Debate on Friday on the Ruhr will show a very considerable change in mind in a large section of the French Deputies.
I refer to these things as showing that the change is coming, and that, if we are to recognise that the change is coming, we have to make our position clear now, and not after the events have all taken place. The things we must do are these: We should make our position regarding trade quite clear. We have done it to a certain extent, but have not gone nearly far enough, and have not. been nearly stiff enough. We ought. to take up an attitude to the German Foreign Minister's statement made yesterday to the Foreign Relations Committee. I would also like to ask, on my own behalf, how long it is since His Majesty's Government knew that that statement which was made yesterday could be made—whether there was any opportunity of making it. If I am properly informed—and I observed that my right hon. Friend who sits beside me put a question which indicated to me that he also had the same information—His Majesty's Government was not informed of that only this morning or last night. In any event, the second thing is that the Government should ask France quite definitely, in a friendly way, what her policy is, and what she proposes to get from the continued occupation of the Ruhr. Thirdly, and this is just as essential as the others. we ought to make our own position clear. It is very important to rernember—I think some of our Continental friends are forgetting it—that we signed the Treaty of Versailles. It is rather odd that that should have to be noted, but whoever reads Continental opinion must be surprised to find that apparently it is a common thing for our critics abroad to forget that we were
signatories to the Treaty of Versailles. As signatories to that Treaty, we have both the right and the duly to make our position clear on what is going on now in the Ruhr and in the region of the Rhine. This is absolutely essential. We should make it clear that, although the French have gone into the Ruhr without the consent of Great Britain, and have thereby destroyed all hope of reparation, that does not give the French any additional rights under the Treaty, nor does it destroy Britain's rights under the Treaty. That is a point which I think it is very urgently necessary to make quite clear.
Moreover, we are told that it would be taken as a hostile or unfriendly act if we expressed our views, but I do not think it would be. We are told that, if we were to interfere in any way, if we were to make suggestions of solutions, in an official way as a Government, which were not in accordance with certain things that are being done at the present time, it would be a case of "Please take your hands off." We ought not to accept that situation for a moment. It is very humiliating to us, and it is more than that; it is depriving us of our moral obligation as a signatory of the Treaty of Versailles. We are responsible for this position as much as anyone else, and we cannot go away and simply wash our hands in public like a Pilate, saying, "Your blood be upon your own heads; we have no responsibility for this." We have a responsibility for it., and it is perfectly right that we should say so in such a way as to leave no doubt as to the fact that we claim those rights and we accept that responsibility. I think I am entitled to assure hon. Members that, so far from that making enemies, it will, as a matter of fact, make friends. There is nothing that tends to good understanding more than a perfectly straight, friendly statement to nations and peoples with whom we have been accustomed to co-operate. Therefore, all I wish to say in supplement of what has been said is to appeal again to the Government to make its position more definite. Some of us during the last. two or three weeks have been working as hard as we could to bring about this understanding, not between Governments, which at present is not the most important thing, but. between one national public opinion and another national public opinion, in the
hope that the clouds will disappear and that the dangers and threats of war will become mere things of the past.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The absence of the Prime Minister must be a source of great regret to the House. He had hoped and expected until this morning to be present at the Debate and speak, but when I saw him at about 10 o'clock it was plain that his voice had not sufficiently recovered to enable him to address the House. It was with great regret that he had to give it up and leave the conduct. of the Debate to me. I am intervening for a short space only, because I only want to make as clear as I can the position of the Government, and I shall leave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to deal with questions which have arisen and will arise in the Debate more directly concerned with the Foreign Office, with which he is far more familiar than I am. I should like. to join in the universal congratulations to my hon. and gallant. Friend the Member for Oldham (Sir E. Grigg) on his maiden speech. He made one realise how he was able to capture at the first assault the city which provided Mr. Winston Churchill with the first seat in the House. There was one point of my hon. Friend on which I can reassure him. He expressed a hope that we were keeping in close touch in this matter with the Dominions. We are and we intend to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) desired the publication of Papers relating to the Conference held last August. I am sure he will understand that all I can say at this moment is that I will consult the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. and I hope it may be possible to give effect to his desire. There was one point my right hon. Friend mentioned about the discussion in January and the question of the priority of Belgium. That was answered by the Leader of the Labour party, who pointed out, what my right hon. Friend had for the moment forgotten, that these questions affecting the priority of Belgium were withdrawn the moment it was seen they were terms which would be inacceptable.
This is the fourth or fifth Debate we have had on this subject in the last 10 weeks. I do not think anyone can find
fault with that, because this whole question of the Ruhr occupation is one which touches our people very closely and causes both the Government and the people of this country the gravest anxiety, but the discussions following so closely upon one another often make it impossible or very difficult from one Debate to another that anything now can be found to be said. The only new thing which has appeared to-day, so far as I have been able to follow the Debate, is that in preceding Debates many suggestion have been made to the Government as to what they ought to do, and to-day hardly a single suggestion of any kind has been made at all, except that we should negotiate and to follow up proposals which may be made by other people. I think that is a very natural position to arrive at, because the root difficulty of this case, as has been said in this House more than once, is that there exists to-day, and has existed during the last few months, a profound but genuine difference of opinion between ourselves on the one side and our Allies on the other as to the policy which has been adopted. The French would maintain that in taking the step they have clone they have only taken a step which we threatened to take two years ago, and that has been put before us very plainly and it is a very difficult question to answer.
At, the moment, they have shown themselves singularly unwilling to accept intervention of any kind, and it is that attitude on their part, and on the part of the Allies acting with them, which has so far presented a door banged, bolted and barred against many of tile. ordinary methods of approach which in ordinary times might lead to a settlement. I remember early in this Session there was a most interesting Debate on a subject. on which we all held views, and that. was the possibility of bringing the whole question before the League of Nations. That possibility, of course, has been explored, as every other possibility has, and I do not know that there is anything to add to-day to what was said in that Debate. I think, perhaps, a remark that fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Aber axon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) really gave us, I think unconsciously to him, a clue to the whole situation. He said this struggle will not end until one party is beaten to its knees.
That is a very terrible statement, and if it were true in effect it would be disastrous to Europe and to the, world. I hope and believe it is an exaggeration, but it immediately suggested this to me, and I think the analogy is a very true one and I make no excuse for using it in a House which I am sure will be able to follow it. The position politically in Europe to-day is almost precisely on all fours with the position in this country when you are at the beginning of a very grave and extended strike. You have exactly the same temper—a temper which will brook no interference. You have exactly the same talk in the Press and by the publicists, which was even given effect to in this House by so practised a politician and so keen a student of foreign affairs as my hon. Friend who recently spoke.
We all know—and no one knows better than the late Prime Minister, with all the amazing success which fell to his lot in steering this country through one of the most anxious years of trade disputes that it. ever survived—that, in a strike, the nature of which I have attempted to describe, premature interference leads to disaster, and it is only by keeping in close, friendly, honest, direct and straightforward touch continuously with the parties to that strike that the man outside, who has the power later on of helping to bring it to an end, can strike in at the right moment and be welcomed by both parties and can really effect, or help to effect, that settlement, whereas if he interfered before the psychological moment has come. and before the temper was ready, he might prolong the struggle. He might, certainly, render his own position, when opportunity did come, such that he would be incapable of rendering any help.
I think it is profoundly true of the situation between France and Germany to-day. I believe the moment will come when our services to our Allies and Germany may be of inestimable value. I am certain that if we were so to conduct our conversations with our Allies as to lose their confidence, or make them feel we were taking an what, rightly or wrongly, they would describe as an attitude of hostility, our whole power, which I believe is going to he immense presently, would be dissipated. I can assure the House that the
Government is in close touch continually, both with the Allies and with the other country concerned, and that the moment we believe that by any form of such intervention, or anything else, we may take a step forward to bring nearer that peace for which Europe has waited so long, and that settlement of debts and reparations without which we can see no continuous improvement of international trade—we are still hoping the time may come when we can do this, and we are firmly convinced that up to now, in the past few weeks, we have pursued the only course possible for this country. We have preserved the friendship of our Allies, and their confidence and their trust, and I believe we should be accepted by Germany as an honest negotiator when the time came. We have those advantages to-day, and I see nothing at this moment—I only speak of the moment—which should induce us to step aside from the path in which we have hitherto trodden. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Sir E. Grigg) that we have been perfectly straight with the French. They know one position, and they know our view. We shall continue to be straight with them, and I believe it is from the fact that we have been straight with them, and they know exactly what we feel and what we mean, that we preserve to this day, as we do, both their friendship and their respect. The hon. Member also made some remarks about the trade of our country, and he paid a very well-deserved tribute to our representatives in the Rhineland. I cordially endorse every word he said. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who will speak during the Debate, is prepared to tell the House what steps are being taken, and what the result of those steps have been. I do not think I can add anything of use to what I have already said. I regret profoundly the absence of the Prime Minister to-day. It is always of the greatest importance. to the House of Commons that matters of such high policy as this should be dealt with by the head of the Government. I trust it may not be long before my right hon. Friend's voice has completely recovered, and he is able to take his part in our Debates.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Three months ago the French Government occupied the Ruhr. Since then the House has
listened to many Debates on this subject. These Debates have, I am sure, been extremely useful and extremely necessary, but so far they have not resulted in obtaining any definition of policy from the Government, unless the admission that England can do nothing be taken as a statement of policy. I am going to attempt to put forward a constructive suggestion. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Government is often criticised, but seldom is a constructive suggestion put forward. I am going to speak on the possibilities of demilitarisation. I have listened with much interest to what the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) had to say on this subject. He said that demilitarisation was of no value, as it was included already in the Treaty; but he did not explain that demilitarisation was linked up with the pact of mutual guarantee, which did give France additional security. France sees the Treaty whittled down until she has felt that there was very little hope of security to be derived from it. I submit that the French ought to know how far we are prepared to go, and what are the terms we are prepared to accept. If it is shown that some scheme for demilitarisation would satisfy a section of French opinion, and give the French nation that security which they require, I feel certain that the right hon. Member for Paisley would be the first to welcome such a suggestion.
By demilitarisation I mean that the left. hank of the Rhine and certain territories on the right bank including the Ruhr should be kept entirely free of military forces, either French or German, that within this territory no fortifications of any kind should be erected, that no recruiting should take place, and that the great strategic railways that run through this zone should not be available for mobilisation or transporting troops. This territory would in no wise be severed from Germany, either economically or politically. It would remain an integral portion of the Reich. These conditions could be enforced by the League of Nations. It goes without saying that the Franco-German frontier would remain unaltered, and that. the French troops at present in occupation of Germany would retire to their own country and behind their own frontier, freeing Germany absolutely and at once of the presence of foreign troops. This is my suggestion.
If it were possible to induce the French to retire even a very few kilometres on their side of the frontier, I would very much welcome the idea, but I fear that that is impossible.
May I point out some of the advantages of the plan I propose? We all know that the chief requirement of France is security. Most people in this country sympathise with the French in this requirement, and it is abundantly evident that until France has obtained the security which she requires the Franco-German problem will remain unsolved. It has become increasingly evident that a good deal of French opinion would accept. some such scheme as satisfactory from the point of view of security, and it is easy to see why. If a Germany bent on war cannot. use the strategic railways of the Rhineland, which were built to a great extent for the express purpose of rapidly mobilising millions of men, she would have to mobilise far back to the East, well into her own territory, and advance her armies across her own country, as she was wont to do across the country of her enemy. Even were she, on the outbreak of hostilities, to send a light force into this zone, she might take possession of it and she might use the railways, but she could not use them for mobilisation. To mobilise an army, an obstacle behind which you can mobilise is required. The Germans used to use the Rhine as a screen behind which they mobilised their army. If they could riot use the Rhine they would have to use the Weser, miles and miles away. This is so true that the French, who had not the natural advantage of a river behind which to mobilise, had to build a screen of forts from Verdun to St. Michel, in order to provide that security behind which an army in its initial stages, when it is most, vulnerable, requires protection. If the strategic railways of the Rhineland were not available to the German military powers, the ramps and sidings which are essential to mobilising and entraining large numbers of men would be, of course, lacking.
The world under this plan would have ample warning of Germany's intention. Germany would have declared war on the League by violating a zone for which the League was responsible. The aggressor would be unmasked. No stealthy manœuvre would be possible. Time
would be given for the world to decide on its action. We all know that one of France's chief anxieties is her dwindling population. The measure which I propose, if adopted, would tend to equalise the man-power of the two countries. The 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 of Germans who inhabit the Rhineland would no longer be available as potential soldiers. I do not think the Rhinelanders themselves within a few years' time would much lament having lost the privilege of serving as soldiers in the Prussian Army. It may be said that there is no military service in Germany to-day. The whole point is that the French fear that, on the first opportunity, the Germans will make their man-power available, and will use their enormous preponderance of population to overwhelm France. France is fearful of that. She has conquered because the world was with her. She is still on the pinnacle on which we did so much to place her. Can she stand there long alone?
When 1935 conies and France is bound to evacuate the Rhineland, what is going to happen then? If she does not come to some arrangement now, when she has something in hand, when she still has the sympathy of the world, what will her position be then.? I think she would he mistaken if she relied upon us in 1935 to support her if her policy then was the policy that she is pursuing to-day. France is the lesser nation in population. She cannot retain her domination very long. When she goes, as go she must one day, how long will it be before the forces of vengeance follow? Already, farseeing men in France understand this, and would welcome a plan such as the one I have outlined. They would welcome it because it would mean a solution of their present difficulties. Perhaps the most important of all the advantages of a demilitarised zone that France and Germany would be separated by a vast expanse of territories where soldiers are unknown. Armies separated by a frontier only cast long shadows before them, the shadows of war, shadows that stretch out and darken the lives of nations, that stretch out across continents from the frontier fortress to the cabinet council chambers in distant capitals.
7.0 P.M.
So much for France. I believe that the advantages of this scheme are quite incontestible for France, and I
believe that the scheme is also advantageous for Germany. I believe that the demilitarisation of the Rhineland would arouse no feelings of outrage or injustice in Germany, and that, if she is sincere in her desire to discharge her obligations, she would accept this proposal. There is here no question of dismemberment. Not a single German will cease being a German under this scheme. Germany will remain entirely German, politically and economically. I would remind the House that this plan is quite compatible within the Treaty. Articles 42 and 44 provide for the perpetual demilitarisation of the Rhineland, as the House has already been reminded by the right hon. Member for Paisley. There is also provision in Article 213, under which the League of Nations could perfectly well be charged with the duties I have outlined. Germany would therefore not be asked to accept any new obligations, and there is no reason why she should resist such a plan. At present, Germany is on the verge of ruin. The heart of the country is occupied by foreign and hostile troops and there is no prospect of their withdrawal. In fact, the French have announced that the beginning of the occupation under the Treaty has not yet started. Undoubtedly and inevitably, at the rate at which things arc going at present, the German nation will come to feel that the only solution is in the hope of some day fighting a war of liberation and vengeance. My plan, if it he put before them, offers them art honourable way out of their disastrous position, in the same way as it offers a way out for France. I have no illusions as to the difficulties of translating this idea into action. One of the chief dangers and difficulties is that certain Frenchmen are talking of a buffer State, a new republic of the Rhine. Even an autonomous State within the Reich is quite unacceptable. I, for one, would absolutely oppose any such suggestion, and it would certainly find no favour in this country.
The Rhineland is the very heart of Germany. The whole legend and history of the country are centred round that beautiful part, and to separate the Rhineland from Germany is unthinkable. The Rhineland is far more German than Alsace-Lorraine was ever French, and
an attempt at separating it from Germany would most certainly create war. It is therefore not to be countenanced under any circumstances. I do not believe that the section of opinion in France which advocates such a solution as a Rhine Republic represents the most far-seeing statesmen there. It is based, like everything else in France, on fear for the future. One way of meeting that fear is by insisting upon the further guarantee of security which France requires, and which would be provided by the Pact of Mutual Guarantee, which will come before the League of Nations at its next Assembly, and which, I believe, is at present being considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence. The representatives of France and England have both approved in principle of this Pact. Its adoption would do much towards clearing the ground for a final solution of the Ruhr problem. The Pact provides for mutual defence by members of the League in case of menace or attack. I suggest that the Pact, with a demilitarised Germany, might provide the solution required. There is one point, however, which I think it necessary to underline. That is that it will he absolutely necessary to convince France and Belgium that the League is capable of carrying out the obligation placed upon it. Personally, I should have thought that a mere body of inspectors, with wide powers, if they are sufficiently numerous, would have sufficed to carry this nut, but I suppose that a gendarmerie of the League of Nations might be insisted upon as well in any case, I do not imagine that France would ever consent to evacuate until, first, she was convinced that the League was strong enough to take over and enforce the proper demilitarisation. Even so, she would not forego her right of searching for arms in Germany, which was contained in the Peace Treaty, although that, I think, might take a somewhat different form than at present. France should also he assured that she will not have to forego Reparations. With this I do not propose to deal, hut I do not see why the League should not also he made responsible for collecting Reparations, once they are placed on a sound basis.
I should hope that if such a plan were adopted Germany would become, as soon
as possible, a member of the League of Nations. Our chief difficulty in dealing with Germany is that at present she does not trust the League of Nations. She considers that she is always meeting France and Belgium when she goes off under the belief that she is going to meet the League. That, of course, would have to be changed, if a plan like this were adopted successfully. The League must be the League, and nothing but the League. It would be quite wrong if the League handed over its powers to Belgium and France. Some over-zealous friends of the League would not entrust any of this work to the League. They believe that it. would be over-taxing its strength: but, surely, the League would lose far more than it could possibly gain by shirking its responsibilities. I am afraid opinion in Germany is hardening to the struggle. She is not in a mood to give way. I fear that the breaking point may soon be reached if something is not done. The Communist and reactionary elements in Germany are gaining strength. The comparatively weak Central Government cannot hold these forces of disorder for long in check. There is also, I fear, grave and imminent danger of an explosion in. the Ruhr. I would remind the House that in pre-War days Germany kept a large military garrison in almost every town in her Empire. In the Ruhr, alone, owing to the risk of friction because of the difficult character of the population, a minimum of troops was maintained. One must remember what a danger there is. The 50,000 French troops would be lost among the 5,000,000 inhabitants of that region, might be absolutely swept away at any moment, and you might have Sicilian Vespers on a scale unheard of in this country. Once fighting has been started on the Ruhr the worst elements in Germany would draw to the spot, and all the might of France could do nothing to stop the bloodshed. The horrors of street fighting on such a scale would actually make the siege of Saragossa pale.
I submit that in view of this danger we are entitled to ask that the Government should publish a plan. The world is waiting for a lead. Belgium is, perhaps, not too happy about the part she is playing in the drama. Italy has practically withdrawn from co-operation. Switzerland, Holland, and Sweden are suffering very heavily industrially. We know that
the United States are with us in the desire to see the military occupation of the Ruhr come to a close. Whatever the Prime Ministers of France and Germany may say in public, we know the fact remains that those two nations are most anxious for a just settlement. If we cannot intervene, we can at least make a statement of policy. We cannot impose a solution, but surely we can offer suggestions. If our suggestions lead to heated discussion in France and in Germany, so much the better. To provoke serious discussion of such a plan is the first step towards a final settlement. Until there is a plan to discuss, discussions will not begin. Until discussions have begun, an agreement can never be reached. What I ask is that the Government should give the stamp of its approval to some plan for a permanent settlement of the Ruhr.

Captain BENN: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon and gallant Member for Loughborough (Brigadier-General Spears) and, also, in common with other Members of the House, to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Oldham (Sir E. Grigg). I do not understand clearly what the hon. and gallant, Member for Loughborough is suggesting. Does he mean that, what he suggests is within the Treaty, or it is taking advantage of the present situation to inflict further penalties and to take away other powers from the sovereignty of Germany? That is what I am not clear about.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: The powers are within the Treaty. I suggest the linking up of this working arrangement. with the new Pact of Mutual Guarantee.

Captain BENN: In that case, it seems to me, so far as I can follow it, to be some extension of the Treaty. My own opinion is that we are face to face with wrong being done to Germany in defiance of the word we ourselves gave. We were responsible for the disarmament of Germany. We made an Armistice, the terms of which have not been carried out. Therefore, there is a certain moral responsibility. Whether we are able to early it out, or not, I cannot say, but there is a moral responsibility on us toward the Germans, because they laid down their arms on certain terms, and the Treaty which we made with them, and forced them to sign, is not being observed
to-day. That should be made quite clear by the Government. I totally disagree with what Lord Derby says, that morally you are right and practically you are wrong. My opinion is, and it is shared by others, that morally as well as practically you are wrong.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: in the case of voluntary default it is laid down in the Peace Treaty that the respective Powers may take Such measures as they think necessary. Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that Germany had not made a voluntary default?

Captain BENN: In the first place, our representative officially gave his view that it. was not a voluntary default. In the second place, when somebody else, not big and powerful like France, but a comparatively small country like Rumania, attempted to take up the same standpoint, all the Allies, headed by M. Clemenceau, told her roundly that she was not acting within the Treaty. Those are two simple answers to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interruption. I rose to deal with the special aspect of this question, not the exalted aspect which has been the subject of debate hitherto, but a plain business aspect—the harm clone to our interest by this proceeding. As the House knows our people who are trading with the occupied territory, and indeed with the unoccupied territory as well. are subject to two authorities. They arc first subject to the German Government, and then they are subject to the French and Belgian administration, and goods coming into the Ruhr or the Rhineland have to pay duties to the Franco-Belgian customs and goods leaving have also to pay these duties, without at the same time escaping the duties which they owe—money duties and formalities—to the German Government.
I have, one case in mind of a firm which had actually paid double duties and if the President of the Board of Trade wishes particulars I can give them. But that is not the worst trouble. The worst trouble is this conflict of authority which is paralysing our trade in these districts. I have spoken with many traders. They have not said that it is so much the money, although that does come into the question, but they complain that they never know whether they can carry on their trade or whether, as soon as they
have got from one control and run into another control, consignments of goods which they need are held up, they know not where, and never reach their destination. It may he said, "Why do they not comply with the Franco-Belgian orders. as these powers exercise the de factocustoms administration?" The answer is that the German Government regard compliance with the Franco-Belgian orders as trading with the enemy. We were familiar during the War with the sort of penalties inflicted on traders who traded with the enemy. That is the attitude of the German Government towards firms who comply in every respect with these French demands.
Moreover, the German Government, as one of the penalties, have announced that when goods, in respect of which the orders have been complied with, reach this country and a demand is made for the reimbursement of the 26 per cent., which we deduct under the German Reparations Act, they will not reimburse the amount. We debated this matter at some length on Monday night, and the Government did not appear to know that this was being done. I do not know where they get their information. The Chancellor, I presume, had only the customs information, hut the President of the Board of Trade has the information available at the Board of Trade and from the Overseas Trade Department, and knows that the German Government have made it clear that they will not reimburse this 26 per cent. That is sufficient in itself to paralyse trade with this country. The British Chamber of Commerce in Cologne wrote to our Foreign Office setting out their grievances. I have their questions here, and the answers which the Foreign Office gave, and which are highly unsatisfactory. They say, for example:
 Are the orders of the German Government or those of the Inter-Allied 'nine Commission to be obeyed in reference to the import and export of goods? 
The answer is:
 British traders within the area are subject to the Rhineland High Commission, and are obliged to recognise all the orders of that central body in accordance with the legislative power conferred on them. In the event of their goods being exported or imported through unoccupied Germany and the German Government also levying charges on them His Majesty's Government are not in a position to protest or claim recovery of those charges.
That is not a very helpful answer to traders who are working very often with trade calculated to the last centime. Then the British Chandler of Commerce ask:
 Will British merchants or other British businesses in the occupied territories be justified in pleading force majeure should actions be brought against them in England. because many people are anxious to import goods from Germany?
The answer of the Foreign Office is:
The questions is one which would have to be decided in the Law Courts.
The next question is:
Will British-owned goods, property, and money in occupied territory be liable to arrest, seizure, or other action which may be determined upon hr the French-Belgian military authorities or the Commission in pursuance of the present coercive policy?
The answer is:
All goods imported or exported without licence or permit or in breach of the terms of such licence or permit are in practice liable to seizure by the French-Belgian authorities,
and they add, that if there is any special hardship they will inquire into it. The position is that. British trade in this district is paralysed and the Government is impotent to assist, and when we had a Debate the other night I was surprised by the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
I understand that the German Government is certainly carrying out its undertaking about the 26 per cent.
That is denied flatly by the traders in Cologne. The second thing he said was,
 I am advised that up to now there is no sign of our trade as a whole with Germany falling off. I am not saying that signs may not appear, hut not so far.
Who would judge from an answer of that kind that for some days past, probably a week, the one service of steamers that goes from London to Cologne viâ the Rhine has been entirely suspended. and that this business is practically at an end. It may be stated in reply that these statements are only alarms and fears, but that no actual damage has been done. I do not wish to weary the House with examples, but. I have here three good examples. One man who purchases in this territory for export to South Africa and the Colonies, and whose purchases are calculated to the centime, says that he cannot stand such expense—that is the 10 per cent. imposed.
The second case is that of a British firm in London who had a large consignment of knives from Solingen which they were going to export to India. These unfortunate people wrote to the Foreign Office three or four days ago, because their consignment had been stopped, hut up to this morning they had no reply. Not because the Overseas Trade Department is not anxious to help them, but because it is completely powerless in the matter.
I would suggest that the Government should show more activity on behalf of its own traders. The complaints are very bitter and are very real. The Government may say they have no means of action. That is a confession of impotence on behalf of the British Government, which is rather sorry hearing, but when the Government were negotiating with the French on the subject of railway arrangements, as to the number of trains to be permitted to go through Cologne in support of the French occupation, why were not these negotiations made the occasion for getting some concession out of the French on behalf of our traders? The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, in his reply will say that certain arrangements had been made, but I would draw attention to the fact that the so-called special arrangements only referred to trade up to 20th or 25th February. That is not the important point. Here is a trade which is based on a constant interchange of goods between this country and Germany, and that trade up to the 25th February, though it may involve loss to our traders, is not so important as the making of arrangements to maintain the flow of goods between foreign countries and this country.
This is only one aspect of the case. The Government persist in saying that they are waiting, and they represent their position as one of strength and reserve. The First Lord of the Admiralty, I think, has given a much more accurate explanation of the position of the Government and of what the power of this country has been reduced to, not only by the action of this Government but mainly by the operations of the late Government. In my judgment, he adequately sums up the position when he pointed out that not only in the Ruhr but also in reference to the rest of Europe, this country is very much in the position of a timid old lady
trying to interfere in a dog fight. That, I think, is an adequate description of the pass to which we have been reduced by the Government policy. I do beg this timid old lady to stir her stumps a little and do something in the interests of her children, who are trying to build up the family business.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised this question, because a great deal more has been done than he seems to think. I agree that the whole of our position has been subjected to great impediments in the way of trade between this country and different parts of the occupied area, though it is noticeable that the actual figures of the monthly trade passing between this country and Germany in the month of February show singularly little diminution.

Captain BENN: Germany in the aggregate.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Germany is Germany. A very large portion is coming through Hamburg. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not accurate in his statement that the actual volume of trade did not appear to be seriously diminished. The monthly average imports into this country from Germany during the last quarter of 1922 were £2,600,000. In January, which was partly a period of occupation and partly not, the imports were £2,800,000; in February, which was a short month, the imports were £2,760,000. The monthly average of exports from this country to Germany in the last quarter of last year were £2,560,000. In January they were £2,120,000, and in February £2,363,000, so that there is, after all, a considerable volume of trade still going on.

Captain BENN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if you send trade viâ, Hamburg you add to the cost of trade and ultimately kill the trade while you are improving the figures?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No. You do not make the faintest difference.

Sir E. GRIGG: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for coal?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is no coal coming out of Germany; there is a large quantity of coal in the export figures, but it is not accurate to say that the whole trade between Germany and this country has been stopped by the action of the French. I am not prepared to accept the view that every single thing which the French do is wrong, and that every single thing which the Germans do is right. It is a point of view which is not infrequently expressed by hon. Members opposite. Of course, trade would be very much simplified were a general settlement made, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman is utterly wrong in supposing that the British Government have taken no steps to secure the greatest possible facilities for British trade during the period of occupation and before a settlement can he reached. The Leader of the Opposition said, "Why do you not do something for trade in this period? You ought to make a statement which shows exactly what is the British position." I submit that it is much more effective to enter into detailed negotiations with the French in a friendly way than to make speeches here, and to say that the attitude of the British Government ought to be this or ought to be that. We did tell the French, and we have told the Germans that the facilities for British trade during the period of the occupation were of the greatest importance to this country, and we have got results which would not have been attained had we taken the action which one hon. and gallant Gentleman who has spoken to-day desired us to take. I will state the facts, and leave the House to judge where now the responsibility lies between France and Germany for the hold-up of British trade.
As hon. Members know, there was a large number of contracts being executed in the occupied territories. What we tried to get was an arrangement by which all the contracts entered into by our people, and all trade going between the occupied territory and this country, or between this country and the occupied territory, should be subject to the same obligations, whether financial or administrative, as they would have been subject to had the occupation not taken place. That seemed to me to be a fair suggestion to put forward. What are the facts? The French and the Belgians are in the occupation of the Ruhr and other terri-
tories. The arrangements made are these: We contended that trade going in and out should be subject to the same obligations as it was subject to before the occupation. Before the occupation licence had to be applied for and a duty had to be paid on imports and on exports. It is true that when the French originally took over from the Germans the control of the Customs offices, they said they could not all in a moment put into force the German tariff which had hitherto been in operation. That is quite understandable. What one had to get was a practicable solution. As a matter of fact, that difficulty is now being overcome. My action in the matter has been neither pro-German nor pro-French, but pro-British.
As regards imports the provisions are these: Wherever a licence had to be applied for before the occupation, a licence has now to be applied for. The tariff, the import duty, which the French are enforcing, is generally the German tariff as it existed in April, 1922. In some respects it is slightly lower than the tariff which existed just before the advance into the Ruhr. There are also to-day, as there have been under the German tariff, articles on the free list. There were some articles which were free of licence and some articles which were free of duty. All the articles Previously on the free list are on the free list to-day, both as regards licences and duty. As regards exports, exactly the same thing is being done; where a licence had to be applied for before a licence has to be applied for now. We have recently received a communication stating that, as regards the whole of the export duties, the French are proposing to put into force the previous German tariff. It is open to British firms themselves to apply for a licence and to arrange for licence duty. I know quite well what the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) will say. But the German Government states, in effect, "If you receive any goods in respect of which these duties are being collected by the French, if you deliver to a British firm, and if these goods become tainted at any point by the payment of the duty which is collected by the French, then you are liable to five years' imprisonment."

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: It is more than that. They punish their own nationals,
or us, if we apply to the Inter-Allied Commission for a licence.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I know. We have made an arrangement in order that the Germans should not have to apply for a licence themselves. Yet, supposing a British firm does apply for the licence and itself pays the duty, and deducts it from the purchase price, the German Government still says, "We will put our nationals under a penalty if they allow the transaction to go through." The German national who is to sell to a British firm, or is about to buy from it, would he receiving the same amount of money that he was under contract to pay or to receive, without a penny of difference. We put it very frankly to the German Government that if their object was to facilitate British trade, the least they could do was to facilitate their nationals carrying out the contracts into which they had entered with British firms. The German Government replied that they could not agree to any such arrangement unless the French were prepared to forego the licence, and the whole of the export duty to which those goods would have been subject in any case. You may say that the German Government is entitled to take up that point of view, and to say that if they facilitate British trade by allowing their nationals to trade with us, they are to some extent blunting the weapon of passive resistance. Possibly that is true. I have put it to both Governments that, whoever is in occupation, the same duty should be chargeable as before. That is a proposition which the French Government have felt compelled to accept, but the German Government are absolutely unwilling to permit their nationals to do this business with Britain under these conditions. There is more than that. If a British firm is sending an application for a licence through the post, that application is returned by the German Post Office marked, "Not known." I submit that the attitude which it was reasonable for us to take up was to ask both sides to allow their nationals to trade with us on the same terms as would have existed but for the occupation. I have stated the attitude which Germany has maintained. I sincerely hope it will not be maintained, though it is in the power of Germany, if she thinks it wise, to make it impossible for our nationals to trade
with Germany. If that attitude is maintained by the German Government the onus of blame for obstructing British trade with Germany rests upon the German Government and not upon the French Government.

ARMENIANS.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Perhaps I ought to apologise to the House for turning from the subject now under discussion to an altogether different topic. It is not a subject which so nearly touches our interest as the occupation of the Ruhr, but it is a subject which very nearly touches our honour and pledges. It must be quite 42 years since I heard my late friend, Lord Bryce, call attention from the Opposition bench to the treatment of the Armenians. He then was forced to make the avowal that it was "A tale of little meaning, though the words he strong." Ever since that period certain gentlemen have made the futile attempt to arouse not merely the sympathy—that the Armenians have— but the action and the intervention of the world for their relief. Some of our best hopes of the rescue of the Armenians have been falsified by the events at Lausanne. What are the facts? My charge against the world, against the Christian countries of the world, America included, is that the story of the treatment of the Armenians culminated practically in their desertion at Lausanne. It is a, tale of perfidy. Let us trace what happened to the Armenians during the War. Turkey was in a. tight place. She made every effort to obtain the support, or at least the quiescence, of the Armenians. She offered them autonomy when assembled at a National Congress in 1914. She applied the condition that the Armenians should join Turkey in carrying on the War against the Allies. The offer of autonomy was, of course, very attractive, but the Armenians declined to accept it. The result—and they must have anticipated it—of the refusal of the Armenians to fight for the Turks and against the Allies, ourselves included, was the greatest and the most systematic massacre of the Armenians even in their bloodstained history. Two-thirds of the population of the Armenians in Asia Minor were destroyed—about 700,000 people in all, men, women, and children. There were a great many Armenians under the dominion of Russia, who, with
all her faults (and she had many faults under the late Czarist system), at least preserved the property and lives of her Armenian subjects.
An effort was again made by Turkey to win the Armenians to their side, and they proposed to the Armenians that they should help to create an insurrection in the Caucasus, which, of course, would have been a tremendous weakening of the Russian front. Not only did the Armenians refuse this insidious offer, but they actually sent 200,000 Armenian soldiers to fight the battle of Russia, then one of our Allies, and it was their splendid resistance, when The Russian army broke down, to the Turks in the Caucasus which helped us finally to win the War. I believe I am right in saying that nearly 200,000 Armenian soldiers lost their lives fighting for the Allies during the War. If it makes no appeal to our humanity. I think that enormous sacrifice in face of immense temptations gives the Armenians a supreme right to our gratitude.
While the War was still going on, the statesmen of the different Powers were giving to the public declarations of the aims for which they were fighting the War, and continuing the War. In every one of those declarations, whether it was by the late Prime Minister of this country, or by the present President of the French Republic, or by the present Premier of the French Republic, or by the late Premier M. Briand, or by any other statesman of any of the Allies, there was not a single statement that did not lay down the liberation of the Armenians, and the other Christian races of the East, from the domination of the Turks. I will not make more than a quotation or two from these declarations in favour of the liberation of the Armenians, as I know there are other hon. Members who desire to speak on other subjects, but I have here a declaration of M. Poinearé which begins with words which are almost tragically ironical to-day. He says:
 The Armenians know us, and we know the Armenians. The Armenians trust us, and we trust the Armenians.
[An HON. MEMBER: "God help them!"] My hon. Friend has put in very terse language what is my own view. President Wilson, when he was laying down the principles on which the future
Treaty should be made and the peace of the world secured, said:
The Turkish portions of the present Turkish Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should he assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.
N. Clemenceau, who, I think, at that time was Prime Minister of France, wrote:
 The Government of the Republic, like that of the United Kingdom, has not ceased to include the Armenian nation among the peoples whose fate the Allies count on determining according to the supreme laws of Humanity and justice.
In 1918, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs reaffirmed the British Government's
 determination that wrongs such as Armenia has suffered shall be brought to an end, and their recurrence made impossible.
Lord Crawford said the same thing, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the House of Lords on the 13th November, 1918. On the 18th November, 1918, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said this in the House of Commons:
As far as I am concerned—and I believe in this matter I am speaking for the Government—I should he deeply disappointed if any shred or shadow of Turkish Government were left in Armenia.
The Allied and Associated Powers made the same declaration, giving it the greater solemnity of a joint action:
 It cannot admit that among the qualities of the Turkish people is to be counted capacity to rule over alien races. The experiment has been tried too long and too often for there to he the least doubt as to its result.
In 1920, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said this:
 It is true that the French are anxious, not unnaturally, to limit their engagements in that part of Turkey (Cilicia); but let it he remembered that they have entered into definite obligations to protect the Armenians there, and that obligation I am certain they have not the slightest intention of evading; and I think we may hope that this which is our main object—namely, the security of those minorities in that part of the world —in future will be undertaken by them. The principles upon which we are acting are these. We want to create an Armenia in those parts where there is a distinct predominance of the Armenian population where we can provide them with a defensible frontier, where they will have the possibilities of economic development and an access to the sea.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) spoke in the same terms:
 If the United States of America feel that they cannot take direct responsibility, we shall have to reconsider the whole position, and will undoubtedly take our share in the matter of helping the Armenian community to equip themselves for their very difficult and perilous task.
M Millerand said:
 Not only has the Turkish Government failed to protect its subjects of other races from pillage, outrage and murder, hut there is abundant evidence that it has been responsible for directing and organising savagery against people to whom it owned protection. It would neither be just nor world it conduce to lasting peace in the Near and Middle East that large masses of non-Turkish nationalities should be forced to remain under Turkish rule.
The Treaty of Sèvres was passed by the Allied and Associated Powers. One of the first Articles declares that Armenia shall be constituted into an independent and separate nation, and there is the consent of the Turkish representatives, and they promised by that Article that Armenia should be a free and independent nation. Again, this was agreed to by the Powers at a Conference in 1921:
 In regard to Armenia, the present stipulations might ho adopted on condition of Turkey recognising the rights of Turkish Armenians to a national home on the Eastern frontiers of Turkey in Asia, and agreeing to accept the decision of a Commission appointed by the Council of the League of Nations to examine on the spot the question of the territory equitably to be transferred for this purpose to Armenia.
It is an extraordinary thing about the whole transaction, that the more protests there are made in favour of Armenia, the narrower become the limits of Armenia, until Armenia has practically disappeared from Turkish Asia Minor. For instance, M. Picot on behalf of the French Government, and Sir Mark Sykes on behalf of the English Government, were asked to draw a line which would mark the frontier of the Armenians. President Wilson was also asked to arbitrate on the frontier between Armenia and Turkey. He did so and made the line not quite so far as the Sykes-Picot. The Sykes-Picot line was here, and the Wilson line was there. What has happened? There is not an Armenian left, except perhaps a few old men and women and a few young women in Turkish harems, in the district which was allotted to Armenia by Picot and Sykes and Wilson. There is no autonomy
in that part of the ancient land of the Armenians, because the Armenians have been driven out.
8.0 P.M.
In meeting after meeting of the League of Nations, the demand has been made that the Armenians shall have proper frontiers, and shall have what is called a national home. What does a national home mean? Before I deal further with this point, however, I want just to relate one episode. The French troops and our troops were in joint occupation of Cilicia, which had 150,000 to 200,000 Armenians within its borders at the time. It is one of the most ancient of all their lands, and was practically the centre of the Armenians' force in the days of their past greatness. The French asked us to leave. We consented, but we consented on the condition that the French should remain and do the work of protecting the Armenians there—which we were willing to do, but which they requested us to leave to them. What was the result? After the French had got us out, they resolved to go out themselves, and they left the Armenians without any protection against the Turks. A lot of smooth-tongued gentlemen declared that if the Armenians remained in Cilicia they would be perfectly safe under the paternal Government of that country, but with 700,000 of their people killed two or three years before, and with their knowledge of the Turkish atrocities and centuries of oppression and bloodshed, and knowing the possibilities before them, the Armenians fled from Cilicia, and Cilicia, the old Armenian home, is to-day without an Armenian population. Meeting after meeting of the Council and of the League of Nations have demanded that the Armenians should have their home. Meeting after meeting of the Council and the League have demanded that they should have autonomy. Let me read what Lord Curzon said on the 12th December, 1922:
 One of the objects which the Allies set before themselves when they were in the War was the liberation of the Christian minorities in Asia Minor. Particularly was this the case with regard to Armenia, the pledges about which have been often repeated and are well known. Indeed, these pledges may he said to have dated from lie Berlin Treaty of nearly half a century ago.
I took some little part at that time in going to Hyde Park to demonstrate in favour of Gladstone and the Christians
of the Near East, and I know even then there were supposed to have been declarations made on behalf of the Armenians and other Christian minorities. Lord Curzon says:
Their case is deserving of special consideration, not merely because of the cruel sufferings they had endured for generations, and which have excited the sympathy and horror of the civilised world, hut because of the special pledges which have been made with regard to their future. There only remains a total population of about 130,000 Armenians in Turkish Armenian territory out of a population that once numbered over 3,000,000.
He goes on to speak of the Armenian national home. Ismett Pasha had said at the Lausanne Conference that the Armenians would be perfectly safe to live under Turkish rule and that happy relations had always existed between the peoples. Lord Curzon says:
If such happy relations have always existed between the two peoples how is it that of the 3,000,000 Armenians formerly in Asia Minor there remain now only 130,000? Had they killed themselves or voluntarily run away? When the French troops recently left Cilicia 60,000 to 80.000 of these people fled to live in misery elsewhere, leaving their homes and families behind. Why were hundreds and thousands of Armenians in all parts of the world, if they had to do was to return to the embraces of the Turkish Government? 
I will make no more quotations. Armenia has the sympathy, at least the lip sympathy, of every country in the world. I was in America for 13 months during the War, and I knew no sentiment which appealed more forcibly and which got more assistance from the American people than that of the Armenians. There was not a little Sunday school up and down that immense country where the little boys and girls did not carry round their subscription lists every week to get money to relieve the Armenians. A friend of mine undertook to pay out of his own pocket all the administrative expenses of the Armenian Committee. It amounted to £2,000 a month, £24,000 a year, and for four, five or six years this generous American has been paying that money for the relief of the Armenians and the administration of the Armenian Committee. I believe I am not wrong in saying that between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000 sterling of American money has been sent by that noble and generous people to the relief of the Armenians.I
have taken part in half-a-dozen campaigns in this country on behalf of Armenia, and never did I see meetings that did greater credit to the generosity and good will of our people. How has it all ended? They ask for a national home. Is that an unnatural request? Those parts of Asia Minor were in the hands of the Armenians centuries before the Turks invaded Asia Minor. There are 400,000 of them refugees in all parts of the world; 50,000 or 60,000, I believe, are in the United States. A large number are crowded in the Caucasus, where they are perishing of hunger and disease, and many are in Persia, but they all want to go back to their national home. Not even the abounding prosperity and freedom and security which the flag of the United States offers to its emigrants are sufficient to tempt these people from their duty to their native land and fellow countrymen. One of the things that most impressed me in reading of the massacres of 1915 and 1916 was that among the list of professors, male and female, massacred by the Turks were men and women who had gone to the United States, who had gone through the American schools and American universities and who, with all the magnificent prospects of a teaching career which lay before them in that great and wealthy land, left all behind them and went back to the schools of their native villages, where they died in the end by the bloody hand of massacre.
The Armenians have their critics. I never knew an oppressed race that was not talked about and criticised by the Phillistines, the concessionaires and all the rest of the base and heartless snobbery of the world. I have heard my own race roughly dealt with by their critics. I have heard the Jews roughly dealt with, I have heard the Armenians roughly dealt with by their critics, but the Armenians are one of the most cultured races in the world. A son of a friend of mine who was fighting came to an Armenian house which had been destroyed by the Turks, the dwellers in which had been murdered, and what did he find amid the ruins? He found a translation of Homer which had been made by an Armenian. The Armenians have been a cultured and civilised race for centuries. Every one of them to-day could become prosperous and safe on the one condition that they foreswore the gospel of Christ and took up the
Crescent. I am proud to have lived still to say a word for the protection of this noble, this fine race.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I rather understood earlier today that this Debate was likely to range over a number of subjects, with which I would be particularly concerned, but we have gone considerably through the evening and the only subject besides the one of the occupation of the Ruhr was that which my hon. Friend who has just sat down has brought to our notice in a characteristically eloquent speech. It is not the first time that my hon. Friend and myself have debated in public and sometimes in private, the matter which he has just been discussing. The difficulty I feel myself in is that I find it impossible to deny practically any of the facts which he has brought to the attention of the House, while on the other hand I do not quite understand what conclusion he intended the House to draw, or to what conclusion he directed my attention. He went on to use a very strong expression when, after tracing the history of this unfortunate people, he said they had been deserted at Lausanne.

Mr. O'CONNOR: That was my phrase.

Mr. McNEILL: By whom have they been deserted?

Mr. O'CONNOR: By all.

Mr. McNEILL: I agree that this in a sense is true. My hon. Friend then quoted a number of declarations made at the time the War was going on. He pointed out the very great claim the Armenians had upon all the Allies, not more upon us than upon any of the other Allied Powers. I admit all that, and I would say that the result which had accrued, so far as the Armenians are concerned, is one of the disappointments, perhaps the greatest disappointment, which has followed the War. But there is one thing my hon. Friend did not attempt to do. He did not attempt to suggest what particular course the British or any of the other Allied Governments could have taken at Lausanne to avoid that desertion he attributes to them.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Had I been in the position of the British Foreign Minister, whatever any other Power might have done, I would have left the Conference.

Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend, in answer to my challenge, says that had he been in the position of the Foreign Secretary he would have left the Conference. I do not think the House will consider that a very practical suggestion, if the House realises what it would have meant and what would have been the consequences of such an action. My hon.. Friend in that case would have sacrificed the peace of Europe and involved this country, if necessary, in a war in order to make good the declarations which had been given. Of course, that is a very splendid and honourable course for any individual or any nation to contemplate.

Mr. O'CONNOR: There would have been no war.

Mr. McNEILL: My suggestion to the House is that no matter how sincerely or how honestly nations may desire to carry out pledges which have been given, circumstances are sometimes too strong for them. What would have been the position with regard to these pledges supposing the Allies to have been the acknowledged losers in the War? No one in these circumstances could possibly have thrown any stone at the Allied Powers if they failed to carry out pledges which had been given on the assumption that they were going to be victorious. So far as the War in that particular part of the world is concerned, owing to recent history which I need not go over again, it can hardly be said that in Asia Minor the Allied Powers were ultimately in a position in dictate terms as if they had been as victorious as they were on the Western front in Europe. Consequently we were not completely our own masters in this respect, and my hon. Friend has acknowledged that our obligation was only the same as that of our Allies. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend read from the account of the proceedings at Lausanne some words which, I think he will admit, are the best possible evidence that so far as the Foreign Secretary was concerned he, certainly, short of leaving the Conference as my hon. Friend would have done, exerted all the influence and power he could on the side of the Armenians. He fought as long as it was possible to do so, in support of the plea that they should be given a separate territorial home, and then when it was found that in no circumstances would the Turks admit such a. solution of the ques-
tion, he pleaded and contended with, I think, matchless skill and patience in order to provide that the Peace Treaty, when ultimately signed, should contain, as far as it was possible, guarantees for the remnant of this unfortunate people for whom he has done so much. I am not going to pretend that the minority Clauses in the Treaty are all we should desire. As an old advocate of these minorities with my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, I would have been glad to see something more far-reaching and tangible in the way of guarantees inserted in the Treaty. That I think was impracticable, arid the only reply I would make to my hon. Friend is, that the House should at least acknowledge that we have not wilfully abandoned any pledge which we gave, and so far as our influence went in the framing of the Treaty, which we hope will be signed, we have secured for the remnant of these people that they shall live under the protection of fundamental laws accepted for that purpose.
As I am addressing the House, I think I should refer to the question which Was raised first in this Debate, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while laying before the House the position and the immediate policy of the Government, specifically left it to me to deal with some of the points raised by speakers during the Debate. There were very few with which I think it necessary for me to deal, but I shall refer to one or two, although the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who spoke upon them are no longer in their places. I will first refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), in which he said that at the present time the attitude of friendliness towards this country which earlier had been expressed in the French Press and by certain well-known French writers, was growing less and less and that these writers were becoming suspicious of the British Government and the British policy. I have followed the French Press and the precis which we get, as closely as I can, and I believe exactly the opposite to he the case. I think up to the end of last year—during the Autumn—there was a growing body of French distrust of the British policy and the British Government, and that distrust—I am sorry the right hon. Gentle-
man is not in his place when I say so—very largely centred round the policy and the methods of the late Prime Minister.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And the whole Government.

Mr. McNEILL: I think it centred particularly around the Bead of the late Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. McNEILL: I say that there are unmistakable signs and also specific statements by French writers which go to show that there is a change. Although, as everyone knows, there are many Members of the present Government, who were also Members of the last Government, French writers and the French Press freely acknowledge that there has been a change in the direction of straightforward friendship with France, and although there has been, quite naturally, a parting, which did not come before, between the policies of the two countries—to use an expression which found its way into the French Press at the time, a rupture cordiale—they recognise the cordiality of the disagreement in a way in which they did not recognise it earlier in the autumn. All the information which I possess goes to show that it was very fortunate indeed for this country and for the Entente, when it was necessary to have a divergence such as has occurred, that it should have been when the Government of this country was under the present Prime Minister and not under the last. One thing has struck me in listening to this Debate and also to the last Debate on this subject. We have had speeches from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and the Leader of the Opposition, and although making very eloquent and pointed complaints of things as they are, bringing out very strongly what they believe to be the faults of the French Government, and complaining in general terms of the policy, or want of policy, of this Government, not one of them has made any practical suggestion as to what this Government ought to do or what this Government ought to leave undone which it is doing. The
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester opened a rather elaborate criticism of the Government; and what is his policy? His policy is to lay Papers on the Table of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it will be considered whether that can be done. But does anybody suggest that the laying of Papers with regard to what took place in August of last year is going, in itself, to exercise any commanding influence on the course of events in Europe. That is not going to alter the present state of affairs, and it really is not a practical suggestion as an alternative for any policy which the Government is pursuing.
What did the right hon. Member for Paisley suggest? His suggestion was that you might have an International Commission, such as has been suggested several times before. What to do? I do not think the right hon. Member very clearly specified what such a Commission would do, nor did the Leader of the Labour party. He referred to the same thing, and he particularly asked me with regard to the statement that was made yesterday by the Foreign Minister in Berlin, who has again put forward the suggestion, for it is no more, that an International Commission of experts might be useful under the present circumstances. After all, what he suggested was exactly the same thing as was suggested several months ago by the Secretary of State in the United States of America in the speech which he made at Newhaven, namely, that a Committee of business experts, international business men, might get together and determine, after examination, three things—what Germany has paid, what she can pay, and what would be the best method for such payments to be made. The right hon. Member for Paisley brought that out and said that that constituted a very important step forward, but either because he had not a complete report of the German Minister's speech, or because he appears to have missed its importance, he did not mention a very important qualification, and shat is that the German Government have distinctly stated—and I think it was repeated in terms in that speech—that a condition precedent to any useful advance of this sort must be the complete evacuation of the Ruhr by France.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It was not stated in that speech.

Mr. McNEILL: Everyone knows, however little they may approve of it, that the French have not the slightest intention of completely evacuating the Ruhr as a condition precedent to any examination of the reparation question such as has been suggested. Therefore, it does not really appear to me that there is any advance whatever in the speech that was made Berlin yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether the Government did not know that this suggestion was coming. I can answer that certainly in the affirmative. It is quite true that the Government knew that some such suggestion as that was likely to be made by the German Government, and the German Government was there and then warned that unless it went a good deal further than the outline that was laid before us, His Majesty's Government did not think it likely that it would prove a very hopeful or helpful suggestion at the present time, Therefore, none of these things have really altered the situation, and there is not one single hon. or right hon. Gentleman to-night who, in criticising the present state of affairs, serious as it undeniably is, has really put forward anything that the Government could do or leave undone which is likely to better the situation. Thu Leader of the Opposition said several times over that an attitude of benevolent neutrality is no attitude at all, or that it is a futile attitude, or that it means nothing. Very respectfully, I venture to differ very strongly from that. Surely neutrality is a very definite attitude indeed. When there is war going on in the world, a declaration of neutrality by various States is just as important an attitude as a declaration of belligerency, and very often when war is going on the position of neutrality is not only a very definite one but a very difficult one to maintain.
My view is that the benevolent neutrality, if that be a proper description, which this country is at present maintaining, only as regards the Ruhr policy, and not in any other respect, is a very definite attitude, not at all to be blown aside as a futility, but one which definitely gives expression to the true attitude and belief of a majority of this country, and certainly of this House. The Prime Minister described it at the
very outset as amounting to this, that while we cannot endorse the methods by which the French are attempting to recover what is their right under the Treaty we do sympathise with the failure of the French people to realise what they have had a right to expect; that while we hope that more will result from their policy than we have the least reason to expect, we are certainly not going to do more than we can help to put obstacles in their way; and that while keeping ourselves free from any action which would compromise ourselves or make us in any way, morally or otherwise, responsible for a policy of which we cannot approve, at the same time we are determined, as we always have been, that we will do nothing which will frustrate unnecessarily the policy of our own Allies, who remain our Allies, who remain our friends, whom we hope, when the right time comes, to be able to assist to the best of our ability; and with whom, whatever may be the immediate occasion of a temporary quarrel, and whatever may be the result of the immediate policy which they are now pursuing, we have the fullest hope and intention of maintaining for the future our international friendship and our close alliance, as the best possible guarantee for the future of Europe and the peace of the world.

LACE INDUSTRY,

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I wish to raise a question which has been debated more than once during this Session, namely, the question of the lace trade of this country. I make no apology for raising it again, because the condition of that trade is so deplorable that I should be wanting in my duty to my constituents if I did not utilise every possible opportunity of bringing it before the Government. As many as 75 per cent of the lace machines in the Nottingham area are standing idle at this moment, 80 firms have in the last few years gone out of business altogether, and highly skilled men by the thousands have drifted into common labouring work, unskilled work, lowly paid. Whereas there used to be, only a year or two ago, 50,000 people employed in the lace trade, there are now employed only about 1,700. If the economic chaos in Europe continues, I am afraid those people have nothing to which to look forward but complete unemploy-
ment, bankruptcy and ruin, and it is for that reason that I take this opportunity of raising the necessity of giving this industry the benefits of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. When we have brought this subject to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, he has questioned our right to be included, on the ground that there is no evidence we are suffering from the depreciated franc, but I contend that we can prove and establish our case. The President said that there is no evidence to prove that the value of the franc is not the same externally as it is internally, but I cannot help feeling, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that he is misinformed on this question, because we have submitted to the Board of Trade reliable statistics proving, that whereas the value of the franc in relation to the £ during the whole of last year averaged about 60 francs to the £, the price of retail articles did not rise above 40 francs to the £. If the franc was higher by that degree internally than it was externally during last year, how much higher is it at the present moment when the franc has gone to 70?
I, therefore, claim that. we are suffering in Nottingham from the depreciated franc, and that we have a right to be included, or, at all events, to have our case examined by the Committee. The Board of Trade will not attempt to refute these figures. They try to prove to us that it is all a delusion that Nottingham is suffering from foreign competition at all. They produce statistics which tell us, that whereas the imports last year were valued at £1,000,000, the re-exports amounted to £876,000, and, therefore, only £124,000 worth of the lace brought in remained in this country, and therefore it is absurd to claim that Nottingham is suffering from foreign competition. In rebutting these figures, I wish to point out how unreliable they are. They do not give in the least a true and proper account of the quantity of lace retained for consumption in this country. These figures give no account of the prices at which goods a-re imported. Freight, insurance, commission and profit come to about 20 per cent. I would draw the attention of my Noble Friend to the fact that it is well-known in the Nottingham trade that vast quantities of lace are sent into this country by parcels post. Those goods are re-made up, and sold
in large bales for export. As showing how unreliable, the Board of Trade statistics can be, in some years they prove that the re-exports of lace exceed the imports. For instance, in 1920, the Board of Trade figures show that £136,000 worth of lace was imported into this country, but the re-exports in that year were £889,000. The Board of Trade attempt to explain that this is accounted for by the carry-over, but the balance available for carrying over last year was only £210,000. The Board of Trade also attempt to explain their figures by saying that the great discrepancy between the import of £136,000 worth and the re-export of £889,000 worth, is accounted for by the large changes of prices in 1920 compared with 1919. If, however, we look at the quantity of cotton lace imported, we find that only 1,629,000 square yards of lace were imported in that year, whereas over 12,000,000 square yards were re-exported. Really, one cannot place very much reliance on these Board of Trade statistics. The Christian Scientist tries to explain away disease by saying there is no such disease, but I am afraid the Board of Trade must furnish us with much more reliable statistics to try to prove to us that there is no such thing as foreign competition with the lace trade in this country.
The President of the Board of Trade, when we approach him, as we have approached him in the past, tells us that we aught to develop our export trade. He says, "Develop your trade with America." I quite agree with him. The Nottingham lace trade has been an export trade in the past, and I hope it will be again in the future, but, in the present circumstances, we are up against exactly the same difficulties with our export trade with America as we are in our home trade, because the duties in America are ad valorem duties, and, owing to the depreciated franc, the French goods jump over the American tariff at about 50 per cent., whereas we have to pay 90 per cent. There is no doubt about it, the Nottingham trade in the past has been an export trade, and, therefore, in the prosperous days the home trade was somewhat neglected; but, after all, it did provide £1,000,000 worth of trade for Nottingham machines, whereas that has now sunk to nearly a quarter of that amount. Now that the export trade of Nottingham has fallen away to nothing owing to the de-
preciation of the French franc, the increased competition of French goods, and the high tariff, the home trade assumes much greater importance, and I do submit that if we were to get the benefit of the Safeguarding of Industries Act for Nottingham, the idle, machines could be set going, not, perhaps, at their fullest extent, but, at all events, till things got better.
I ask the Government and the Board of Trade to say what they are going to do. Are they going to do nothing at all, and let this trade go away altogether? A 90 per cent. tariff has been put upon our exports by America. The Government have done nothing. The tariff in France has been largely increased. The Government have done nothing. So far as I know, they have made no protest. French goods are sent into the home market at prices with which Nottingham people cannot possibly compete. Again the Government have done nothing. I warn the Government against getting the reputation of being a "Do-Nothing" Government. I submit that we have a right to ask the Government to be helpful. I am bound to say that I and my colleagues will be obliged, by the pressure of public opinion, to take every opportunity of worrying the Government in this matter. I do hope, however, that the Government will he able to make to-night some answer which will give a little hope and cheerfulness to the Nottingham trade, which otherwise is going to die away and be lost for ever to this country.

Mr. LORIMER: I wish to claim the indulgence of the House for my maiden speech, and personally, may I say, I am thankful that the benches are so empty. I shall be able subsequently to tell my constituents that there was not quite a full House. The Noble Lord, who has just spoken, and I have the honour of representing constituencies where lace is the great trade. Long Eaton is the principal town for the manufacture of lace, which, in turn, is finished at Nottingham, so that hon. Members will see that we take a special interest in this industry. I wish, without traversing some of the ground of the Noble Lord, to bring a few facts before the notice of the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the extraordinary difficulty of the position in which the lace manufacturers are at the present time. I would like to say that,
in the month of February, I took the opportunity of going round a number of the firms there to see the exact position of the trade. One afternoon I visited eight firms, and there I saw 230 lace machines which ought to have been in full play. Amongst these 230 machines I found 23 only at work and 13 of these were on short time, and this has been going on for a considerable period.
One of the principal firms, and one of the most up to date almost in the whole country, was visited, and here the proprietor put all the facts of the case before me. He pointed out that his firm had a capital of £50,000, and he had, amongst other things, 20,000 patterns, costing £5 each on an average. He had a considerable number of machines—I forget the exact number—each machine costing before the War, roughly, £1,100. The price of yarn for the spinning of lace, which in 1922 was 42s. 6d., to-day is 12s. 6d. The Board of Trade returns with regard to employment show that in 1906 the number employed was 37,520 males and females. In 1914 that figure had risen to 50,000. In 1922, I am sorry to say, the figure had come down to 10,000. This gentleman had plant costing, as I have said, somewhere about £50,000; that capital was lying practically idle, and this was due almost entirely, as the Noble Lord has pointed out, to the adverse exchange. For the firm on whose behalf I am speaking—I will not trouble the House with the name—there was in 1913 purchased 114,470 lbs. of yarns, against 35,275 lbs. The employés numbered 157, against 46 in June, 1922.
I think these two facts must show the drastic necessity for something being done to save this large and pre-War lucrative business. I should like to ask the House to consider one or two suggestions as to why the lade industry should be brought under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The first proposition that I would put to the House is that we ought to get the advantage of the Act, because an article costing 2s. net to make and finish in Nottingham is now being imported from Calais at 1s. 4d. To compete at 1s. 4d. involves a loss which is quickly putting every firm out
of business. The French article is purchasable here at 1s. 4d. because the franc is only worth 3½d. instead of 10d.
Another reason for asking that this industry should be put under the Act is that by adding the duty of 33½ per cent., plus other charges and expenses incidental thereto, the economic effect of the depreciated French exchange would be corrected, thereby enabling our manufactures to compete with the French on practically equal terms, and certainly without loss. The third reason is that the normal trade cannot be restored until the depreciated value of the exchange with France has been corrected. Further, it should be noted that a depreciated rate of exchange which reduces the wage rates below the standard rates payable in the country receiving the goods, has the same effect as the importation of goods made with sweated labour. I should like to give one or two other figures showing why the lace industry should have the protection for which we ask. The following figures speak for themselves: The import of Leaver's lace, cotton, and silk for the 12 months ended 31st August, 1922, was equal to £2,000,000, including import by parcel post estimated at £250,000, while the minimum wages value in these imported goods, say 25 per cent., equalled half a million. Instead of receiving these wages, lace workers in our district, Longeaton and Nottingham, were receiving at one period during the present depression in trade up to £4,000 a week in unemployment pay. We suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that instead of spending £4,000 per week in unemployment pay, the money would he much better employed for the good of the country as a whole, and particularly for these people in our different areas, if we could only get the protection of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and thereby keep our mills going, These are one or two facts on which I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give us some comfort and some answer. We admit that we have been received with every courtesy, and the matter has been thrashed out very thoroughly, hut we maintain that the present position of the lace trade is entirely due to the depreciated exchange, and, if that be so, I think the trade is undoubtedly entitled to special consideration, because the Safeguarding of Industries Act was brought in primarily to correct that unfortunate
condition of the exchanges which might happen after the War. We submit that this is a case which stands by itself, and is a very clear case for protection under this Act.

Mr. ROBINSON: In the remarks that I desire to make on the cotton industry, I am not supporting the principle advocated by my hon. Friends opposite. If I had to support a protective duty on the cotton industry, I should not need to go to Lancashire or Yorkshire any more. The mark is not the trouble at all with the cotton industry of Lancashire or Yorkshire, but, directly we seem to get a little bit of trade, and get our manufacture of the cotton cloth going, up goes the price of the raw material. The trade is being killed to-day simply by the increase in the cost of the raw material. We in the cotton industry—many of the employers as well as operatives — believe that this business is being subjected to gambling and speculation and cornering. I have sat on these benches and listened to many discussions with regard to unemployment, but I do not know that I can remember any instance being brought before the House that will compare with the cotton industry of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The textile industry, ever since the War ended, has been one of the worst trades that I know of. There are members in my own association who have not done a stroke of work for two years, yet they have a situation to go to if there were work to do. It is simply because the mill is closed. I was speaking with the Secretary of the Oldham Spinners this morning, and he told me that this week they are paying no fewer than 6,000 unemployed workpeople. If there are 6,000 unemployed workpeople, there must be 6,000 card-room workers who are unemployed. I do not imagine that there are so many weavers unemployed in Oldham, because the velvet trade is working under fair conditions, but where it is mainly a question of cotton cloth the weavers in Oldham will be suffering just in the same way, and I imagine that at the present time there are no fewer than 15,000 unemployed people in Oldham connected with the cotton trade, who would be working if the price of raw material were such that they could make cotton cloth to sell at some profit.
9.0 P.M.
In the constituency which I represent—and these are official figures from the Employment Exchanges—there are in a small place like Brighouse, which has less than 20,000 inhabitants, no fewer than 975 people unemployed, because they cannot make a profit, and that is due to the high cost of the material. In Elland, again, another very small district in the constituency, there are 250 people unemployed, and in Greetland there are 240, while, as I have already said, there are no fewer than 15,000 in the district of Oldham who are unemployed to-day, who have been unemployed during this week, and are on the Employment Exchange funds. The Government is helping to find the money, and, in my opinion, it is the duty of the Government to take some steps to make inquiry into the cotton industry of Lancashire and Yorkshire, which, if this cornering is going on, will help to prevent it. In Morley, in Yorkshire, there are over 2,000 unemployed workpeople in the cotton industry, out of a population of 27,000. At Blackburn and Burnley, which are weaving centres, the condition of things has been deplorable for many weeks. From the date of the Armistice the cotton industry commenced to slacken, and the condition is now a most serious one. Many mills have been absolutely closed for twelve months, eighteen months, and even, in some cases, for two years. They no sooner get a few orders, and get the place going, than, when the next lot of orders arc due to come in, the price of raw material has advanced and again stopped trade. As long as this condition continues, the cotton industry can never be expected to get back to the old conditions.
It is not protection that we seek. Protection for the cotton industry in Lancashire and Yorkshire would be its ruin, and I hope I am not understood to be supporting my friends from Nottingham, although I do not raise the slightest objection to anything they may put forward. I do not say that it is only the operatives who are affected. The employers to-day, as the result of trying to keep their machinery going, are losing hundreds of thousands of pounds in a year, and that is very serious for the people who have to toil and who depend on them for their employment. I believe the middlemen in this business are largely to blame for the present condition
of the cotton trade. Many hon. Members in this House would be surprised to know that, between the growing of the raw cotton, the purchasing of the whole field of cotton, and its coming into the form of cotton cloth and being sold as such, there are no fewer than 20 people who dabble in the business, every one of them making some profit if there is profit to be made. What is to become of the working people under conditions of that sort? I hope that the Government will give some consideration to this matter. I should have liked to take part in the Debate with regard to the position on the Continent, because this is a trade 80 per cent. of which is an export trade. We have to depend upon foreign countries, and, until there is peace and confidence in India, until there is peace in Egypt and in the East, the cotton industry will continue to suffer. Further, I am convinced that, if only this gambling and cornering in cotton can be stopped, something will arise which will give us more employment than we have at present, but, whether there is peace or not, if this gambling and cornering is not stopped the looms will be empty, people will be unemployed, and the Government will be called upon, through the Employment Exchanges, to pay away many hundreds of thousands of pounds. I want to appeal to the Government to give some consideration to the position of the cotton trade. I have been connected with it for longer than I want to remember. I have had some knowledge of it officially for 45 years, and I never knew it in all my life in a position in which it was so fluctuating. There is just a slight boom, and then up goes the price of cotton. I want the Government to make some inquiries. I believe one of the best things which could come would be to have a joint meeting with the representatives of the employers and the operatives to see if something could be done to lift it from its present position.

Mr. REMER: I do not join issue with the hon. Member as representative of a constituency that borders on mine with one word that he has said about the terrible position that exists in the cotton mills in that district. In my constituency of Macclesfield there is one cotton mill which has been actually closed down for two years. I want to endorse every
word he has said on that aspect of the question. I do not, however, think he has tackled the real root of the problem. It is my view that we must look at the situation of the cotton trade to-day as compared with what it was 10 years ago. At that time Lancashire was using more than half the raw cotton that was produced in the world. To-day she does not count, as far as the consumption of raw cotton is concerned. The United States is using more than half the raw cotton that is produced; the Continent of Europe is second, and Lancashire is a very bad third. If we analyse why it is that Lancashire is in this deplorable position, I do not think it can be denied that the real reason is that the whole world is raising up tariffs against the Lancashire cotton trade, mainly in India, which is the great market to which the hon. Member has referred, and that is one of the main reasons that are preventing us from finding employment for our people. The great ideal founded by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, which was going to bring Free Trade within the Empire as the ultimate goal, is the means by which we can secure more employment for the people in the cotton and other trades.
But that is not the main thing upon which I have risen to speak. I have risen to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southern Derby (Mr. Lorimer), whom I congratulate on his maiden speech. The only point on which I should like to join issue with him was when he deplored that there were only a few people in the House, because I am sure if it had been full and Members had listened to the cogent arguments he brought forward, they would have carried great weight. The lace trade of Nottingham is in exactly the same condition as the silk trade of Macclesfield. I really cannot understand why the Government, in the very serious position in which these two trades are placed, state that they are not able to do anything to assist them. The Conservative party, to which I have always belonged, and which claims to he in power at present, has always held it out as its ideal that they shall do something to help the trade and commerce of the country. That has always been the first plank in our platform. It seems to me that the people who at present occupy the Treasury Bench are inclined, whether we are dealing with agriculture, housing, unemployment, or
this case, to adopt the policy of doing nothing—the policy of laissez faire. It has been stated on the public platform that this is a Government of reactionaries. I join issue with that. I think they have lost their pluck. When the President of the Board of Trade was a back-bench Member, he was never lacking in pluck. He was always able to make a bold speech attacking the Government of the day, and make them express views which might not be popular but which he thought right. Now he has got to a great position in the Cabinet, he might display a little more pluck in dealing with the position in which the country is placed.
The lace trade and the silk trade have practically the same case to submit to him. The silk trade is essentially a very much better case because £25,000,000 of manufactured silk came into this country in 1922, and when hon. Members opposite talk as they did in the Free Trade and Tariff Reform controversy about food costing more, I wonder if they will go to the ladies of Mayfair and try to get their votes by telling them their silk dresses are going to cost them more. That is essentially a luxury trade, and of all other trades it should receive consideration on that ground. In this country we have only 30,000 people employed in the silk trade, while in the United States it is the greatest textile trade, employing 600,000 people. A gentleman who was sitting next to me at the silk trade dinner last week told me that the previous month ho had been at the silk trade dinner in New York, and instead of 100 people being present there were something like 1,500. When we find goods pouring into this country at prices much below the cost of production here, it is time the Government considered seriously what they are going to do for the trade. It has been said that most of the imports are coming from Switzerland and from France, but we know, and the people of Macclesfield and other towns in the silk trade know, that these goods which are assumed to come from Switzerland and France are really being smuggled over the frontier from Germany into middlemen's hands without giving any advantage to the consumer here. The Joint Industrial Council of silk trade includes amongst others the chairman of the Liberal Association, who did all he could to keep me out of
Parliament at the last General Election, and it also includes members of the Labour party, and they have come to a unanimous decision asking for protection for this trade. What possible case can be brought against attacks being put upon imported manufactured goods?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I am afraid the hon. Member has suggested something which requires legislation. If he can suggest anything the Government can do by administration, he will be in order, but not otherwise.

Mr. REMER: It is in the administration of the Safeguarding of Industries Act that it should be done. What possible case can the Government raise? I have never heard of one point they have brought forward which by the widest stretch of imagination can be brought to bear against the case which the silk trade have brought forward. If there is a case, why not let the silk trade and other trades of that kind put their case forward before an impartial tribunal under the Act, in order to prove their case? I have the greatest doubt about the bona fides of some of my right hon. Friend's officials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I have the gravest doubts, and I am prepared to submit them to the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw! "] I do not withdraw. These cases should he submitted to an impartial tribunal, so that they can be fully investigated. I submit to the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who is to reply, three definite questions: (1) Has his refusal to deal with the silk trade anything to do with any trade agreements? If so, we arc entitled to know exactly what those trade agreements are. (2) Has his refusal anything to do with our diplomatic relations with France and Italy? If so, we are entitled to know and to have a definite answer on that point. (3) Why should protection be given under this Act to motor-cars, films, watches, gas mantles, fabric gloves, and musical instruments, and refused to such luxuries of the rich as silk and lace? When these facts are placed before the country, when we know the serious state of unemployment which is existing in these trades, and when we know the serious position in which the country is placed, we are entitled to some more satisfactory answer than has yet been given by the Government. I do submit
that they are alienating their best supporters, and that they must face this question and bring it to an immediate issue.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): The position of the Board of Trade, like that of the Ministry of Labour, in a time of unparalleled depression is not an easy or enviable one. It is not only in the great industries that have been referred to to-night that the acutest depression prevails. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend and the Government are endeavouring to do everything they can to bring to an end this period of trade depression, and to give every assistance to various industries. I will deal first with the remarks of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Robinson) in regard to the cotton industry. If I may say so with all respect, I do not think he was quite justified in reproaching this Government, of all Governments, of inactivity in regard to the cotton industry.

Mr. ROBINSON: I did not charge you with that. I asked whether you would give it some attention, and I suggested what I considered to be the best way of doing it.

Viscount WOLMER: I submit that the Government has already given this matter very great attention, and is continuing to give it great attention. The hon. Member pointed out, quite correctly, that one of the chief causes of the depression of the cotton industry is the great price of raw material at the present time. That is a matter to which the Government and the preceding Government nave been alive for a long time past. We are at this moment taking every step within our power to promote cotton-growing within the British Empire and elsewhere in order to increase the supply of raw material for this industry, one of our greatest industries. I would remind the hon. Member that when, last Session, my right hon. Friend introduced a Bill to promote cotton growing in the Sudan we did not meet with very warm support from hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think I am fully entitled to say that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—when we are reproached with not having done all that lies in our power to improve the supply of raw material
available for this industry. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member said in regard to the necessity for the restoration of peace and normal conditions throughout the world before this great industry can prosper. That is only echoing the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier to-day. Everything that this Government can do to bring about normal conditions in the world we are doing, and will continue to do. I now turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), who made a general attack upon the Government because they were not sufficiently Protectionist, not sufficiently Tory—

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: And not sufficiently die-hard.

Viscount WOLMER: And not sufficiently die-hards. I am glad to welcome the hon. Member as the latest convert to the ranks of the die-hards. I am sure we shall gain great force from his inclusion. I am not entitled, at this stage, to enter into a general discussion on protection for the silk industry. The only point that can be discussed is whether or not my right hon. Friend ought to have held an inquiry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act with regard to the silk industry. I say with all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, that he has not made out any case for the application of that particular Act to that particular industry. I took very careful note of what he said. He spoke about the large imports that come from Italy, Switzerland and France. In regard to Italy, no question of the exchange arises, because the internal purchasing power of the lire approximates very nearly, or keeps pace very nearly, with the external purchasing power, and we have not a situation there in any degree comparable with what exists in Germany. In regard to Switzerland, no question of the exchange arises.

Mr. REMER: My point was that the imports from Switzerland are really coming from Germany.

Viscount WOLMER: My hon. Friend said that the imports of silk from Switzerland in reality come from Germany. All I can say is that the Board of Trade would be exceedingly obliged if the hon.
Member would give us any proof of that statement.

Mr. REMER: I can do that.

Viscount WOLMER: If my hon. Friend is in a position to do that, I can assure him that we should appreciate that assistance very much. At the present moment, we have no information in our possession which would lead us to suppose that that is the ease. The hon. Member dealt with the case of France. When the application for the inclusion of this trade under the Safeguarding of Industries Act was made, the position of the French exchange was different from what it is at the present moment. I admit that the depreciation of the French exchange did introduce a new element into the situation, but I would point out to him that the French exchange has already considerably improved, and that the prices of materials in France have also been rising to catch up with the depreciation of the franc. Therefore, even that new factor is less acute than it was six weeks ago, and unless the franc continues to depreciate I do not think it can be held at present that a situation has arisen under which the Safeguarding of Industries Act can properly be applied to France.
There was one part of the speech of my hon. Friend to which I must take the gravest exception, and that was the remarks he made with regard to the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. I can assure him his remarks were totally unfounded, and also, in my opinion, totally unjustified. I would like to say this to him: The civil servants are not the servants of any particular party. They are the, servants of the nation, and they are not in a position to reply to attacks that are made upon them. They have no means of answering any criticisms or any accusations that may be made against them in the Press, or in this House. If there is anybody to be attacked, it is the politician, and my hon. Friend knows that as well as anybody else. I hope if he has grievances, and criticisms to make, that he will throw all his criticisms, all his strictures and abuse, on the shoulders of this Government, who are here to answer them and can answer them. My hon. Friend, in his concluding remarks, asked three specific questions in regard to the silk industry. He asked if this application had been turned down on account of any
trade agreements. If the hon. Member looks at the Safeguarding of the Industries Act, he will see that the question of trade agreements is provided for under that. Act. All I can say to him is that every application we have turned down—and this application in particular—has been turned down on the merits of the ease and not from any ulterior motive at all.
He also asked, "How can you justify a duty on motor cars and on gas mantles, and refuse a duty on imported silk?" There, I would point out, he has made—if I may say so, with all deference—a complete confusion. The duties on motor cars, on watches, and on musical instruments, were imposed under what are known as the McKenna Duties. They were duties imposed on luxury articles during the War. The other duties he mentioned were imposed under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. In the opinion of the Board of Trade, it is not possible, consistently with the terms of that Act, to impose a duty on silk imports as provided for by that Act. If the hon. Member wishes to raise the general case of protection in regard to luxury articles, that is altogether a different issue, and one which I am precluded from dealing with in this particular Debate.
I have endeavoured to answer the remarks of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, and now I turn to a very distressing ease, brought forward by my Noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), and by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Lorimer), to whom I should like to add my congratulations for his most admirable and able maiden speech, which I very much regret more hon. Members were not present to hear. My Noble Friend knows that the Board of Trade is fully alive to the appalling conditions which confront the lace trade in this country. Again, I must say to him, I cannot argue here the question of imposing a duty on foreign lace as a general part of protective policy.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Cannot you favourably consider it?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That would be a matter for legislation. I would remind the Noble Lord that that would not be in order on this occasion.

Viscount WOLMER: That, as the Noble Lord knows, is forbidden ground. All that I can argue to-night is whether this industry is a fit subject for the applica-
tion of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. My Noble Friend gave some very interesting and elaborate figures to the House to try to prove his contention that it was. In spite of numerous conferences that have taken place, and most sympathetic examinations—

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Hear, hear!

Viscount WOLMER: —on the part of the Board of Trade of all the facts put before us by the industry, and of statistics which we have been able to collect, my right hon. Friend cannot see that the Safeguarding of Industries Act could be properly applied in this case. My Noble Friend confessed that the real cause of the depreciation in the lace industry is the loss of our export trade.

Mr. LORIMER: That is due to the depreciation of the franc, because the American market are able to buy in France very much more cheaply than they can buy here. America, before the War, was our chief purchaser.

Viscount WOLMER: No doubt it is so, but that does not come under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, nor would the Act help that matter. We should not increase the American trade by keeping out French goods from this country. Let me give the House the main figures of the situation. This application was in regard to lace, without curtains and net—what is known in the Board of Trade returns as "other sorts." Before the War, we exported about £3,000,000 worth of this lace. At the present moment we are only exporting, say, £1,000,000 worth. That, in itself, is amply sufficient to account for this very great depression. Before the War, the home market consumed about £2,000,000 of this lace, and of that there was imported from abroad, roughly speaking, two-thirds. We only produced about one-third of the lace consumed in the home market. To-day, the home market has shrunk to about £750,000. Of that, about half is supplied by home products, and about half comes from abroad. Therefore, the situation as regards imports supplying the home market, is better to-day than it was in 1913. On those grounds, it would not be justifiable for us to say that this was a case where the depreciation of the franc or any other foreign currency was
flooding the English market with goods to an extent that was greater than before the War.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: How does the Noble Lord account for the fact that everywhere in England French cotton lace can be sold 25 per cent. cheaper than English lace? No amount of statistics can get over that fact.

Viscount WOLMER: That, again, is a question which we are not at liberty to consider under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. That Act is based on grounds of currency and dumping.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: This is on account of currency.

Viscount WOLMER: My Noble Friend says so, but the facts are that the imports from France and abroad are very much smaller, not only actually but relatively, than they were before the War. Therefore it cannot be held that the Safeguarding of Industries Act would be properly applied in this case. My Noble Friend, I know, distrusts profoundly the statistics of the Board of Trade. He says that they are entirely inaccurate.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Hear, hear.

Viscount WOLMER: If he can tell us how they can be improved we shall be very grateful. He tells us that a great deal of lace comes into this country by parcels post, and so eludes altogether the watchfulness of the officials of the Customs House. The only answer I can make to that is that 240,000 parcels came in from France in 1913 and last year the number was 206,000. Therefore the number of-parcels coming from France is considerably less than it was before the War, and we have no reason to suppose that a higher ratio of those parcels contained lace last year than was the case before the War. If that is so, it cannot possibly be due to the exchange, because the exchange affects every other commodity as well as lace. Therefore on that ground we cannot say that this industry has made out a case for the application of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The truth is that the Safeguarding of Industries Act is of very narrow application indeed, and intentionally so.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The whole thing ought to be put in the fire.

Viscount WOLMEIR: Because it was drawn up by a Government consisting largely of Free Traders who desired to restrict the limit of the protection which it, would afford to the narrowest possible compass, and it is the duty of my right hon. Friend to administer the Act whether he likes or does not like it. We have got to abide by the terms of the Act. The real question raised both by the speech of my Noble Friend and by the hon. Member for Macclesfield is a very much wider question and one which must be considered on some other occasion.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES DISPUTE.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I would like to call the attention of the Government to the agricultural strike which has unhappily broken out in Norfolk, and I fear has also begun in other counties. We may be at the opening of a very momentous crisis, and a very great disaster, and anyone who speaks on this subject in this House must do so with the highest sense of responsibility for the possible effect of his words. It would be unfitting for this House to remain silent on the opening of such a big event as an agricultural strike of this magnitude, but the fact that the Government has taken action in regard to it brings it normally into the purview of this Debate. We have on these benches refrained from alluding to the subject so long as there was a chance of settlement, but that chance unfortunately disappeared with the notices that were issued on Monday morning, and our only aim must be, from whatever quarter of the House we speak, to contribute, if possible, something to an early settlement, and a settlement on just lines.
The Minister of Agriculture sent down to Norwich some ten days ago his well-known representative Captain Devlin, who proceeded to bring the parties together, and he did so in a perfectly impartial manner. My complaint is that it was too impartial. The Board of Agriculture, to put it plainly, in a dispute such as this, where right is so clearly in the demand for a standard wage, ought not to have been impartial, and the precedent which it seems to me was the right one to follow was the precedent arising from the well-known work of Lord Askwith, who on so many occasions, which are familiar to the public,
went down to various localities and on behalf of the Government used his influence with one side or the other, not merely as the bringer together of the parties, but as giving sound advice which took effect, and, in my judgment, it would have been very appropriate if the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture had been given instructions to act somewhat on those lines.
The agricultural labourers in the low-paid counties set the standard of wages virtually for the whole country, and the danger now is that of a formidable attack on this lowest class of wage-earners. When the Government of this country accepted the principle of the Trade Boards Act it adopted what Mr. Churchill called "the idea of the national minimum," and by the Trade Boards Act it was laid down that it is not in accord with the principles of government in this country that any trade shall be sweated. When you have a trade which, by the admission of the Minister of Agriculture himself, is worse paid than before the War, and was called before the War, for instance, by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), a sweated trade, then to look on at the destruction of a decent standard of life is to abandon the tradition set by the Trade Boards Act. The Government did bring the parties together, but they did not advise against the latest of several cuts which were proposed by the Farmers' Union. It seems to mo and my friends that they ought to have taken up an attitude in favour of a decent standard, because unquestionably agriculture in these counties is a sweated trade.
I have mentioned that the Minister-lately admitted that the wage in several counties was lower than the pre-Wale wage. It has been talked about as a 25s. wage, but in fact the farm labourer-in Norfolk has not been earning 25s., but 24s. The price of goods which the, labourers buy in the villages is much higher than the index figure shows. Therefore the comparison with pre-War wage is really much less favourable than has often been suggested in this House. An illustration of the extraordinary straits to which the labourers are driven is to hand in the action of the boards of-guardians. One or two hoards in my.
constituency have given relief to Families, and not exceptionally large families, on the ground that the children were manifestly suffering in a high degree. They -decided to give 5s. or 4s. value in kind. The Minister of Health has told them to stop, but the fact that, in spite of that, they have risked the danger of surcharge and continued to grant this relief, is proof that you have here cases in which some such intervention, as Sir George Askwith frequently used to represent, should have been employed by the Minister of Agriculture.
Compared with the wages lately proposed by the Farmers' Union of 5½d. an hour, you have roadmen in many counties earning 10½., and in many counties where there is even less good land you have 6½d. per hour paid to farm labourers. You have here an attempt to bring down the wages to something far below the recognised standard of living. We remember the fight for the dockers' tanner 34 years ago. You have in Norfolk now an attempt to get the wage below the tanner. I think I have said enough to show that there was good ground, at all events, for something very different from impartiality on the part of the Minister of Agriculture in sending down his representative. To reinforce the need of partial and not impartial intervention, may I quote from a letter of a labourer known to me. He says:
 We have six children whose ages are from 13 years to 13 months. We pay in rent 3s. Pd. We have 5s. 8d., out of which I have to pay for tea, sugar, margarine, oil, soap, and various other small articles for daily use. Our daily food is bread, margarine, and potatoes. We have not been able to purchase a piece of meat for months. Our baby is allowed milk daily by the guardians on the doctor's certificate. The rest of us cannot have milk for any purpose whatever.
To bring home the need for Governmental partiality, may I quote a member of the board of guardians in this particular district, a member very well known in this House, Mr. George Edwards. Speaking to his own board of guardians the other day, he explained that the guardians must run the risk of being surcharged and of having to pay the surcharge themselves, and he added: "One poor fellow brought me his wife's budget, in applying to the guardians. There was not a penny for meat all
through the week, and the only things outside food were a tin of black lead and some matches. That man's wife had not a penny for meat, coal or rent, and the children wanted shoes." That is the state of things which the Board of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour have to face.
It is a case for doing something, and not merely for looking on with folded hands. We are faced with the dire position of the farmers in very large areas, and we are practical people. We have to ask, would arable farming be given up if wages were in any degree higher than this terribly low level? The argument is that the wages must be reduced below 6d. an hour. On the question of Government action, I want to suggest that this is a ease for utilizing the Industrial Courts Act machinery. That Act gives power, if both parties consent, to refer the matter to an Industrial Court for settlement. Did the Minister of Agriculture try to obtain the consent of the parties to such arbitration?
There is another part of the Act which provides for what, I think, is still more wanted in this case, and that is inquiry. In Part II of the Act it is laid down that the Minister may inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute. That would surely cover the question of the ability of the farmers to pay a rather higher wage. That is the point which we have to consider. Will ploughing stop? Will rotation farming stop over any considerable area, if a living wage were paid on those farms? We all sympathise with the very great difficulties of the farmer in these days, but I think it would be a great reinforcement to the farmers themselves and to their case if the evidence with regard to their inability were much more final and conclusive than it is. The evidence is very incomplete. As the evidence is so incomplete, inquiry is what we want before we allow such a formidable attack to be made on the standard of living. When there is evidence of a rather contrary kind in some respects, it reinforces the need for inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act. Everyone knows that when farms are vacant, although we are told that they cannot support even the starvation wage which is paid now, farmers almost tumble over each other to take them.
I know of one property in my constituency where the landlord himself approached the farmers and said, "I do not want you to pay a low and disgraceful wage. That means that your rent will be somewhat lower." He reduced the rent by a not very large percentage, and the farmers all agreed that the situation was adequately relieved. I know another very large property where the farmers, hearing of the other case, went to the agent. The agent said," You can take the farms or leave them, but I am not going to reduce the rent, because I can let the farms with the greatest of ease, and not to run to grass, but as rotation farms." He said further, "I will not require of you a year's notice, but will take six months, if you like. I can let the farms to-morrow." Either way it shows that in average and typical arable country, at least in Norfolk, there is not land which, if the wage were slightly higher, would go derelict because farmers world cease to plough. There are quite a number of properties on which the farmers, more or less instigated by their landlords, as I think they ought to be, are paying a higher wage, even 30s. I do not know that it is proper to speak of the Royal properties at this moment, but there are many other properties in Norfolk on which no less than 30s. a week is being paid to the labourers, and there is no talk of the farmers finding it impossible to go on.
The main trouble arises from the fact that so many farmers bought their land, and have been very unfortunate in their speculations. That is true, and one has the greatest sympathy for them. Indeed, they are not to blame. The late Government is to blame, and unfortunately cannot be made to discharge its obligation to them. But that is not a legitimate ground for fining the labourer. There may have been very bad speculations made, but we are now dealing with the question of whether farmers would carry on if the wage were somewhat higher. The farmers are not at all unanimous that it is necessary to cut the limit of endurance lower. I see to-day in the "Eastern Daily Press" a letter from a farmer, who very wisely refrains from giving his name, in which he argues that the Farmers' Union has made a huge mistake. He says, is it worth raising all this bother about Is. a week, which is not a big
enough matter to get attention from the public and the Government, nor is it important enough to make a difference between paying or not paying.
It is a very satisfactory fact, again, that when farmers' estates conic to light through the probate of their wills, it is to be noticed that they are very large estates, the owners of which have done extremely well in recent times, and whose heirs are carrying on, many of them not proposing any reduction in the wage. We all know that farmers, most happily, have arrived at a much higher style of living in recent times, and it is only natural that the labourers should point to the fact that that style of living is not showing any marked diminution in this bankrupt period. Before the War, when this question was debated in the low-paid counties, and the wage was gradually got up from 12s. to 13s., and afterwards to 15s., we always heard that land would be driven out of cultivation because of the extra 1s. a week. Altogether, I believe that, if the Minister of Agriculture would use the procedure of an Inquiry, it would greatly fortify the just case of those farmers who cannot carry on at present charges, and it would show whether there ought not to be an intervention in favour of a decent wage. If the land would really go out of cultivation, then the Government ought to act, and why not adopt reforms, and announce reforms, which would give the farmers confidence enough to go on? I should be out of order, however, in going into legislative reform. In the mere sphere of action there are other methods which might be adopted. The Trade Boards Act might be applied to an industry, which properly belongs to its scope if any industry does. I have given two feasible methods, I think, and I trust that, in order to avoid a prolonged strike, the Minister may decide to utilise one or other of those methods. To watch with folded hands while agriculture languishes seems to me the opposite to patriotism, and to be sanctioning a campaign, which is really a campaign against the wage of all workers, because all workers in towns are dragged down, to some extent, by the low wages of the low-paid counties. It is to the interest of all that a standard should be kept up in the most conspicuously underpaid class of labour, and to stand by and allow, by inference, and
more or less to encourage, a campaign to cut wages in that way seems to me almost to betray the civilisation of this country.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. RILEY: I want to associate myself with my hon. Friend in his expression of the view that this House ought not to adjourn for the Easter Recess without an expression of opinion with regard to the points involved in the dispute now taking place in Norfolk. I want also to associate myself with him in his appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to utilise every means at his disposal to put into operation such powers as he has, not only to deal with the dispute which is now taking place in Norfolk, but also with regard to arresting the general rapid fall of the labourer's wage in all parts of the country. I want to enlarge a little on the criticism which my hon. Friend made with regard to the existing machinery which is supposed to be in operation, through the Ministry of Agriculture, to protect the agricultural labourers in the matter of wages. I want, first of all, to recall to the House what are the facts of the case. Hon. Members will recollect that, owing to the conditions which prevailed after the outbreak of war, the agricultural labourer was able, through those special conditions, and after generations of servitude and grinding poverty, to be lifted from an average of 15s. a week, paid in pre-War days, to 45s. paid in 1919 and 1920. The House will remember that that came about in connection with the Wages Boards set up under the Corn Production Act. In 1921 the Corn Production Act was repealed, and with the repeal of the Corn Production Act the Wages Boards were also repealed; but, in place of the Wages Boards, the Government set up what are now known as Conciliation Committees. These Conciliation Committees are supposed to have taken the place of the Wages Boards. Now what are the facts of the case They are these. Some 63 Committees were created after the repeal of the Corn Production Act. As a matter of fact, these Committees corresponded almost entirely with the District, Wages Boards which prevailed under the Corn Production Act. These Conciliation Committees are empowered to enter into voluntary agree-
ments; that is to say, if the farmers, on the one hand, and the labourers, on the other, can agree to a rate of wages for that district, they are empowered, under the conciliation machinery, to enter into such agreement.
As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the Conciliation Act which makes these agreements compulsory. It is quite true that agreements may be registered providing both parties are agreeable. If the agreement is registered, then it is obligatory on every employer in the district where the Committee has jurisdiction, but, to show the weakness of the machinery, I may mention that 152 agreements have been made since 1921, but only 11 have been registered. As a matter of fact, at the present time, although 152 separate agreements have been entered into, only 16 are in operation. Perhaps you may think it strange that there are 152 agreements in 63 separate districts, but, the explanation is quite simple. The weakness and incompleteness of the machinery is emphasised by the fact that many of these agreements are only put into existence for two and three months, some for as many as six months. Taking the counties of Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire, the agreement is dated 1st May, 1921, and runs till 6th October of the same year. In the case of Berkshire an agreement entered into on the 26th of July terminates on the 3rd September the same year. It is a farce. The whole machinery is perfectly useless. The consequence is that wages are falling and confidence is being destroyed in every part of the country. I want to associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. N. Buxton) has said in appealing to the Minister for Agriculture to utilise other powers and either to make these conciliation committees compulsory in their decisions, registering their decisions by law, and making them binding upon every employer in the area, or if he cannot do that, let him ultilise the Trade Boards. I recall that an hon. Member, who is not in his place to-night, a week or two ago, speaking on the question of agriculture, asked how was it possible to pay better wages in an industry which could not afford better wages. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk has referred to the common experience with regard to the comparatively well-to-do-farmer and the ease with which
farms which became vacant were disposed of and let. I want to remind the Minister for Agriculture that if the farmer cannot afford it and is at rock bottom at the present time, there is at least a margin in the rent which goes to the landlord. The average rent of agricultural land is anywhere between 20s. and 30s. per acre. I think it would be quite within the mark to say that 30s. is the average for arable land in the County of Norfolk. I invite the Minister for Agriculture to go and inquire, and he will find this to be the fact, that for every man employed on these farms, £1 a week per man goes to the landlord who owns the land. We on these benches say there is no sort of justice in the landowner receiving this rent when men, women, and children are asked to live on starvation wages. I hope the Minister will receive what we have said with sympathy, and adopt some means of arresting the decay which is now taking place.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I speak under the sense of considerable embarrassment. I have been in the House a good many years, and I have never yet been called to order from the Chair, and I do not want to break my record. If I dealt with a good deal of the matter I might deal with on this, which is really a very large subject, I am afraid I should be entirely out of order. With regard to the matters dealt with, they could all involve legislation. I cannot put down rent.

Mr. RILEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the application of Trade Boards Act to agriculture would involve legislation?

Sir R. SANDERS: But the hon. Member was speaking of rents, and that is what I am referring to. To do anything like that would involve legislation, and therefore I cannot deal with any question such as that. All I can deal with is the administration of my Department with regard to this dispute. A point which was made in the Debate was that the representative of my Department, who went down in connection with this dispute, was too impartial. Really, I think that for a man who goes down in connection with a trade dispute that is the highest flattery he could possibly receive. He cer-
tainly tried to use his influence with both sides. This is spoken of as a dispute about wages. As far as I can see, it is mainly a dispute about hours. The representative of my Department who went down there tried to use his influence with both sides to endeavour to get them to accommodate one another. On the farmers' side he did get them to make various proposals. They altered their original proposals from time to time, and they did make proposals to try to reach a settlement. On the other side there never was any alteration in the proposal at all. It may have been right, it may have been wrong, but the concessions offered were entirely on one side. There was every hope that the two sides were coming to an agreement. There is a remarkable letter in the "Times" to-day from the Bishop of Norwich, stating what happened last Saturday. The distressing feature about what happened last Saturday was this, that as the conference was drawing to a close the suggestion was made on the part of the labourers' representatives, that no alteration should be made for the next three months, and before the two sides parted all agreed that there should be a truce pending the farmers' meeting on Monday, when the farmers were going to consider this proposal. The next thing that happened was that on the same night Mr. Walker was reported to have made a speech at a remote little town in North Norfolk, in which he said:
 On Monday there is not a man or boy back to the farms until a fair settlement is reached.
That may be right or wrong, but it is not a truce, and with the two sides already agreed that there should be a truce, it seems hardly a square deal to go straight away and make an announcement of that sort. Various suggestions have been made as to what my Department can do. An hon. Member said that it might have offered some sort of arbitration. It has done so. An offer of arbitration was made on Monday. I telegraphed to both sides to suggest that they should agree to the appointment of an impartial arbitrator. This offer came to the farmers who were meeting at the time, and had just received the statement that the men were already called out, and they declined the offer.

Mr. AMMON: Was that truce between I the Agricultural Labourers' Union on the
one side and the representatives of the farmers on the other, or was it between a section of the men and representatives of the farmers?

Sir R. SANDERS: It was between the two parties who were conferring in the Bishop's Palace.

Mr. AMMON: Not the Agricultural Labourers' Union?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, it was. Mr. Edwards was there. I have offered arbitration and it has been declined—[HON. MEMBERS: "By the farmers! "]— by the farmers, and I have had no reply from the labourers. The only other suggestion put forward was that under the Industrial Disputes Act I should advise the Minister of Labour to institute an inquiry. How long would such an inquiry take? The inquiry suggested by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Noel Buxton) is to go into the whole subject of whether the individual farmers in Norfolk can or can not afford to pay a certain rate of wages. I do not know exactly what powers the Minister of Labour has to order the production of bank books, Income Tax returns, and the hundred and one different documents necessary to arrive at a conclusion on that question, but assuming he has All these powers, how long is it going to take? [An HON. MEMBER: "Twenty years! "] I am rather more sanguine. I think possibly it might be accomplished in six or nine months if the gentleman appointed to hold the inquiry worked very hard, but I hope this matter will be settled a very long time before that. The advices which come to me show that after all they are only fighting about a question of two hours a week and that question should be capable of solution in less than six or nine months. To talk of instituting a great big inquiry of this sort, to settle a point of whether the working week should be two hours more or two hours less, really seems to me to be playing with the question. If anything that I can institute, or any step that I can take, is likely to be of use—any step for which I have legal powers—I shall certainly take it. I am advised that at the present moment there is nothing that I can usefully do. I shall most certainly watch the state of things as carefully as I can, and if there is any moment at which the intervention of my
Department is likely to be useful, I shall certainly seize that moment and try to do what I can to bring about a settlement of the dispute.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not a fact that the increased hours will have the effect of reducing wages below 6d. an hour, and is not that where the wages question does come in?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture to the difference that exists between the county of Norfolk and the county of Durham'? With that in view, I am wondering whether Mr. Walker could have done any other thing than he did on Monday last. If we take Durham and compare it with Norfolk, we find that in the former county we are paying labourers 32s. 6d. a week for a 52-hours week. Is there not there foundation enough for my right hon. Friend to have an inquiry, that would last one or two days, as to why the conditions obtaining in Durham cannot obtain in Norfolk? Let it be remembered that the rent for farms in Durham is rather higher than the rent for farms in Norfolk, and if that comparison were inquired into, and the conditions obtaining in the two counties, surely it could be done in quite a short time, so as to get these people back to work for the benefit of the country. What will happen if something is not done? The ratepayers of a very poor county will have to bear a very heavy additional burden, and I think that ought to be taken into account, but the question of food is even more important. All these children are going without proper food, as has been pointed out by one of the hon. Members for Norfolk, and surely something more than sending a mere telegram ought to be done by the Minister of Agriculture in this very serious matter. Let him go himself, or send somebody else. I have had long experience in disputes. I know that letters do not settle disputes, and let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that telegrams are even worse.

Sir R. SANDERS: I have had a man down there the whole time.

Mr. RICHARDSON: If the right hon. Gentleman will get into personal touch with these people and inquire why Norfolk pays such low wages as compared with the wages paid in the North of England, where there are terrible
conditions for agriculture and the rents of farms are higher, I think he will do well. The matter is one which is crying out for his active interference, in my opinion.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. R. MURRAY: I desire to direct attention to a subject of a very different character from, but of no less importance than, the subject with which we have just been dealing. It is of great consequence that; we should have the agricultural question settled and agriculture proceeding along normal lines, but it is of no less importance, and if one regards the country as a whole it is even more important, that we should have the question of housing as speedily gone into, and the difficulties that stand in the way of giving us houses overcome as steadily and as quickly as they can be overcome. The difficulty that immediately confronts us in regard to housing, as we all know, is the question of prices. The prices of material are intimately connected with the question of the control of material, and it is a long-established fact that in this country to-day we have a series of close and very well-organised combines, or trusts, or rings controlling the prices of material. What we desire to press upon the Government is the need for taking every step which is within their power to control these rings which thus artificially keep up the price of building material, and thereby make it possible for building to go on, so that the clamant need for houses shall be met as soon as it possibly may be in this country we have had for a considerable number of years practically no house-building at all, and before the War house-building fluctuated very much indeed between a, figure that represented 36,000 houses built in 1910 to the highest point of 140,000 houses built in 1899. Since then we have had the War unquestionably increasing the real prices of materials. But what has been far more important, as far as the price of material is concerned, has been the definite formation and organisation of these rings.
Before making a few suggestions, which I want to lay before the Department, I will draw attention to some of the facts brought out by a Parliamentary Com-
mittee which inquired into the whole question of profiteering, and especially to that part of its Report which deals with housing material. Take the Report issued in 1921 of that Committee in regard to the National Light Castings Association. The Report of that Committee shows that that association did not merely control, but deliberately laid down the price of 95 per cent. of all the material they produced for the purposes of house-building, and in laying down the price of 95 per cent. they thereby controlled the remaining 5 per cent. It was formed in 1911 for purposes of robbery, as I shall show in a minute. Between the years 1905 and 1911 the materials which this association produced were at their lowest price, but in 1911 the association was formed. I will give from the Parliamentary Committee's Report the declaration of this association's purposes in its own words:
 First, The, object the Association has in view is that of raising and keeping up the prices to the buyer of goods and articles made and supplied to its members.
Secondly, This shall he done by means of pooling arrangements, so controlling production that prices will rise naturally and inevitably as they always do when supply is brought into equilibrium with, or, as soon as may be, a little below demand.
So that we have the declaration of this association—an association which controls, to a very large extent, the materials used in building houses—that its first purpose shall be to keep prices high. We are constantly being reminded in this House that a system of Government control, or of Government ownership, will increase prices. Here we have the declaration of an intention on the part of an important section of the private enterprise of this country that they were robbing the people by keeping up the prices of their commodities to the very highest possible level, and that they do that by pooling arrangements that reduces the output and keeps that output, if possible, at a little below the demand. I have heard a member of this association expatiating in very eloquent and very forceful language against the supposed trade union policy of "Ca'canny." Inevitably we find on inquiry that that "ca'canny" policy, the restriction of output, springs from the manufacturers of material. There is one point that I want the Government, through its Departments, to take into account, and that is the strength of
these rings and combinations. What about the protection of the people— of the community, and those who are clamant for houses to-day —and how clamant every one of us who knows the conditions of our towns and cities know. It is no use to talk of sympathy when children are to-day being born in houses not fit for pig-sties, and being compelled to live there, and opposed to them are these great rich housing combines controlling almost every kind of material and preventing the people having the benefit of increased production and lowered prices, so that the children of this country may be given an opportunity of securing that health and strength, and the possibilities of a full life that they ought to have. Surely it is an important matter that the Government, through its Departments, should take such steps as it possibly can take to ensure that these rings and combines are restricted as much as possible, and, indeed, that they shall be compelled to cease functioning so far as this robbery of the public is concerned.
There is another point in relation to this Light Castings Association. I can remember how grievously nearly everybody objected to the suggestion that there should be anything in the nature of a pool in the mining industry. But these people laid it down that there should be a pool so far as the production of materials necessary for house building is concerned. They take the output of firms in pre-Association times, and they fixed a standard, and the firm which had produced a certain quantity over that was to be penalised to the extent of 7½ per cent. of its additional trade—not of its profits while the lazy, slow, non-progressive and inefficient firm, which did not produce up to this pre-War level, was at liberty to draw from that pool 7½ per cent. of the total value of what it had previously produced. What did an ex-member of this association, a witness before the Parliamentary Committee which inquired into this matter, declare? He said:
 The Association, by this process of pooling, penalises progress and encourages laziness.
We are of opinion, said the Committee,
 That the powers of an association which wields such control over an industry are so open to abuse as to make it a menace to the well-being of the community.
In matters of this kind I think attention is properly drawn to the powers of an association and the necessity of the Government making an inquiry and taking steps which I shall suggest in a moment. The association, immediately it was formed, sent out a circular throughout the country adding 10 per cent. to the prices which had been in existence and upon which a profit had been made. Within four months an additional 10 per cent. was added to the cost of light castings connected with house building throughout the country; while in another three months an additional five per cent. was added. In seven months, therefore, on the authority of this Parliamentary Committee, this great building trade production industry had added to the users to the cost of its productions no less than 25 per cent. The result was that in the years from 1914 to 1920, in addition to the 25 per cent. already added, this same National Light Castings Association added to the cost of these materials between 400 and 500 per cent. I could quote figures for individual products, but it is not worth while to do so. Before I finish with that and come to the proposals which I want to put forward, let me say that, in addition to this increase in prices—and here is one of the insidious features of these rings—in addition to laying down its own prices, and declaring that these commodities must not be sold below that minimum, it controls all the channels through which such commodities, its own and others, reach the user. It controls all wholesalers and retailers, and declares, not only that they shall sell these commodities at these prices, but that these wholesalers and retailers are not to be permitted to handle the commodities of any other manufacturer. We have heard to-night considerable discussion in regard to the cotton and lace trades, and in regard to whether the Safeguarding of Industries Act should be extended by means of Departmental Orders to cover those trades: but here is an association—and all house-building associations are on the same lines—which has its own Safeguarding of Industries Act, which lays down prices, and closes all the channels through which competing materials can come to consumers, either from this country or from outside.
Let me give one instance, which was brought before this committee of inquiry,
and represents what we shall be faced with in the years immediately to follow. One large London builder objected to the operations of this ring, and sought to bring in baths from Germany at a lower price than that at which he could get them on the British market. Every avenue was closed to him, and finally he had to charter a steamer and bring in a cargo of 5,000 baths from Germany. These baths came in, and, after all charges had been paid, they were put into houses at 38s. per bath, the price of the National Light Castings Association at that time being 70s. They were operating a Safeguarding of Industries Act along their own lines. This same committee declares that:
 The National Light Castings Association is in secure possession of an effective monopoly in the home market. It fixes the minimum price of 95 per cent. of the light castings sold in this country, and in doing so sets the price of the remaining five per cent., for all the evidence goes to show that non-associated makers adopt the Association's prices. The castings industry is a controlled industry, but the control is exorcised, not by the State in the interests of the community, but by the Association in the interests of the manufacturers.
What we want is an extension of something of the nature of control over the production of these materials in the interests of the community, and we suggest that one of the things the Government ought to do is to produce these materials as they produced guns and munitions during the War; but, as that is not the wish of the Government, I am in the meantime compelled to make suggestions which they might adopt, and I suggest that they continue the system which the Government initiated during the War—a system of stringent costing with regard to materials of this kind. A stringent system of costing was instituted with regard to the production of what was necessary for the purposes of the War, and it was found that a great many manufacturers had never done anything of that kind. I know the inside of many manufacturing works, and a more hopeless state of muddle than many of them are in it is impossible to conceive. They have not had anything in the nature of a real costings scheme. The Government ought to institute a severe and stringent, system of costings. They ought to publish what the cost of these materials should be, and take definite steps to compel the manufacturers to
come within the prices they publish, and penalise those who will not conform to them. If the Government was doing its duty towards the homeless people, and was really making an effort to carry out its promises to provide homes for heroes and other people, it would commandeer all building material and see it rationed out to the various sections of the community at reasonable prices. What I have said in regard to the Light Castings Association is equally true of every section of house building. The results of inquiry by committees show that shameless profiteering was and is going on in cement, drain pipes, glazed tiles, bricks, slates and practically every material that is required in house building, and unless there is stringent and careful observation and control that profiteering will not only go on but will increase. The moment local authorities begin to speed up house building these jackals of industry are going to swoop down upon the booty. Where the body is the vultures will be gathered together, and instead of houses we shall have more disappointments and explanations why houses are not being built, because the brick makers are only putting down 599 when they should be putting clown 600 bricks a day, or some other useless explanation of that kind, instead of the real explanation, that the manufacturers and controllers of material are not concerned about producing houses for the people, but about increasing their profits.
In suggesting that the Government should control the prices of these materials I am not suggesting anything new. A very large portion of our history was built up on the control of prices by the State and those in authority. It was only under the divine condition of things which has created the millionaires, defended by the right hon. Baronet the Member far West Swansea (Sir A. Mond), that full opportunity was given to the profiteer to charge what he did. For hundreds of years there was a steady determination on the part of Government to see to it that those who had commodities to sell must sell them at prices that, were reasonable to them and to those who purchased them. We know how untrue that is to-day. I noticed very recently, in going over some old historical documents, that in the reign of James VI it was laid down quite clearly that there
should be "provers" for pricing commodities coming into the market and that those "provers" and others appointed by the Government and local authorities should determine the prices, and it was distinctly laid down that "no bringer of iron, timber or other goods shall be a settler of prices with regard to the same." So that we are only suggesting that the common sense of the whole is greater than the greed and desire for increased profit of the few. We do not suggest that those who control commodities to-day are naturally worse than those of us who desire the commodities. We believe
If self the wavering balance shake,
It's rarely richt adjusted.
And we suggest that in place of a greed that stands between the community and houses we should have an increasing control, and particularly along the lines I have suggested, which would prevent the abuses that exist to-day and would give us an opportunity of having our people housed as they ought to be, instead of having them crowded in shameless and unwholesome houses. I trust the Government, in facing up to this question of housebuilding, will remember that its most important step is to control the cost of the commodities which enter into the production of houses, and will also carry out some of its long made and, to a great extent, forgotten promises.

Mr. HARDIE: In dealing with the question of high prices of materials, I do not want to go into the general housing question. I want to take items, one by one, beginning with cement. Cement enters into nearly every part of building construction, with the exception of what is called the iron shed. In reading the Press, and in listening to speeches in this House, I notice that some people seem to think that cement prices only began to rise seriously in 1914. That is not true. Cement used to be bought in this country for 25s. per ton. The reason that cement began to get firmer and firmer from 1900, was due to the fact that just as ferroconcrete began to be approved of in this country, and just as a system of manufacturing cement blocks for house building began to be approved, the demand for cement increased. In contradiction to all the principles held by Conservatives, that
the greater production should tend to reduce the cost, I am going to prove that with your system of combinations, you not only tend to increase the price upon an increased demand, but that by your increased price you have broken your market, and that you take your dividends out of the smalls that you sell in the market that you have broken.
During the War, the price of cement went up to an average of £7. Some people say it went up to £14. During the Great War the men who were doing the nation in in the price of cement were the John Bull flag-waving patriots. They were out to kill Jerry, but in the process they robbed every Department so far as building was concerned. Even in the building of sheds to hold the great airships this detestable type of person, who appeared under the name of patriot, and whose real name was robber, was the same type that makes the great difficulty to-day in the building of houses. Take the cement combine and its returns for 1921–22. The profits for 1921 were £479.762, and for 1922, £451,222. One would have thought that, as there was a falling off between 1921 and 1922, the dividends on the sums carried forward would have been affected.
The figures prove my former statement that, even when the demand decreased, by their stupid methods of running and selling cement, the price was increased, so that in those years the cement combine still kept their level of 10 per cent. In 1921, they carried forward £106,628, and in 1922, £188,144, yet they kept on paying 10 per cent. A building is now being erected along the Embankment. It is a ferro-concrete building, into which thousands of tons of cement are being poured to build it. The contractor is sometimes blamed for the high prices, but here you have a builder absolutely at the mercy of the cement combine. If he tries to be a free man—in the words often used by the Conservatives, when talking about the Trade Unionists—he is told that unless he obtains his supply along with others he will get no cement. The men who want to be the real patriots and who do not want to buy the material are placed in that position, and I should like to have contradiction, based upon fact, of the statements I have made.
I come to the question of bricks, which has been before the public lately. At the
conference of the Amalgamated Building Trade Workers, in Manchester, it was pointed out that the price of bricks in 1914 was £1 16s. per thousand. In 1921, it was £5 1s. 6d. The current price is down to £4 2s. That means an increase of 180 per cent. over 1914, while the worker's wage is 60 per cent. above 1914. Since increases in wages never preceded increases in the cost of living, the natural procedure ought to be that costs should cone down in the relation that they went up. During 1922, in the building trades, wages dropped 18 per cent. on the average, but building materials only fell 9 per cent. Yet the cry is always being repeated that wages, wages, wages are the whole cause of the trouble so far as the increased prices of building materials are concerned.
One has only to look at the wages returns each week and each month, and they can be found in the libraries, and to follow them closely and intelligently, to see the contrast between wages and the increased price of materials. It is no use going into details about glass. I expect everyone sees through that by this time. I do not think there is any need to discuss lead. That subject would prove too heavy for the Conservatives. The cost of production of every material that goes toward building can quite easily be brought to light. There is no need for any committee to adopt any other line than the direct one of getting the invoice of the material at the source. Once you have that invoice you can tell exactly what is taking place. I would like the Committee that is being appointed on this matter to take a very wide view, and I would like the Government to give the Committee full powers. The whole of the existing system of private enterprise is based on the word profit." Every time you suggest a subsidy the profiteer begins hardening his prices. Every time there is a slackening of the demand there is a little easing off in price. As soon as the suggestion is made that as things are cheaper now we ought to begin building houses, then up go the prices. The "Manchester Guardian" on Monday reports a conference held in Manchester on this subject, and gives the name of a contractor who had fixed to do a contract, and when he went to place orders for the grades that were required, was told
that they had advanced £2 each. As soon as these people see a demand, up go the prices. If the Committee comes into existence, and is to be of any use, it must have power to prevent that form of swindling that is going on. When the Committee come to investigate the question of the profits paid upon capital, they should take pains to distinguish between real capital and watered capital, because as soon as this Committee is set up you will have the watering of stock going on so as to make it appear that there is a reduction in profits. This Committee should have the fullest possible powers, so as to provide decent homes for those who have to live in this country, which boasts so much of its beautiful homes. Let us not forget the immorality that exists to-day in business with its swindling, with its system of articles for housing which come from abroad changing hands several times, with an increase of cost to the consumer on every change, and if Conservative Members claim that they have been brought up in schools that give a higher and nobler standard of life, and would like to show that they have a higher standard than others, they will show it in their business relations by dealing honestly and fairly by the men and women who require houses.

11.0 P.M.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I would like to bring the Debate back from the airy realms of fancy, into which the last speaker carried us, to something nearer the real facts of the case. I think that there will be general agreement that we are all anxious to prevent any repetition of that great rise in prices which accompanied what was known as the Addison scheme of housing. I need hardly say that there is no one who is more vitally interested in the matter than myself, because the inevitable result, if such a rise in prices took place, would be the slowing down, if not the wrecking, of the housing programme for which I shall be responsible. On the other hand, I do not want the public to be unnecessarily alarmed. It is quite a mistake to suppose that a combination must necessarily be a combination of swindlers.

Mr. MAXTON: Only when they swindle.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not necessary to suppose that a trade combination means always an increase in prices. The proper objects of a trade combination are to prevent what is known as cutthroat competition, which is not good either for employers or employed, but wastes and dissipates the resources of firms, and prevents them from spending the money that they ought to spend in keeping their plant and equipment up to date, and generally means a deterioration of the industry and the lowering of the wages of those employed in it. It is quite possible for a combination, if it has a real hold on the trade, to abuse its position and to raise prices unduly. I think it is very necessary that we should have correct information as to what is going on, so that the public may have some authoritative pronouncement as to what, exactly, prices me. I have noticed a number of statements in the Press and elsewhere, and I have just listened to some statements about prices, which are not altogether accurate, and in some respects are misleading to the public, though not intentionally, of course. That shows the necessity for an authoritative pronouncement on the subject. Take the case of cement. An hon. Member spoke as though there had been the wildest profiteering in cement during the War. The Committee under the Profiteering Act, which investigated the subject, reported that the cement industry in this country had generally not been financially prosperous, but improved organisation and plant, together with the increased price recently obtained for exported cement, had improved the financial position of the industry, without, however, increasing the price of cement in this country to an unreasonable extent. That was the Committee's Report.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Negotiations are at present, being entered into by American building companies, in view of the probable boom in building in America during the coming summer, in order to obtain a controlling interest in the largest cement combine in this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that fact.? It may have a curious effect on the prices of cement for building in this country.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Let us
consider what is the case to-day, and whether it is a fact that shameless profiteering is going on to-day with the very materials with which we are concerned. I do not think, as far as I have been able to ascertain the facts, that it can be said that a shameless profiteering is going on. At the meeting to which the hon. Member referred, the price of cement was stated to be 130 per cent. above what it was before the War. There was a statement the other day by another authority in the Press, that to-day the price of cement was 57 per cent. above what it was before the War. Which are we to take?

Mr. HARDIE: I am not taking statements in the Press.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am taking the statement in the "Daily Herald." In this case it happens to be correct. It may be quite true to say, as the hon. Member says, that the price of certain bricks is 127 per cent. above what it was before the War, but those are not the bricks which are used in the construction of the houses of the type we are considering. The bricks which are used in the houses which we are considering are only 62 per cent. above pre-war prices. Again, the hon. Member compared these prices—which, I pointed out, are not correct—with the increase in the wages of the operatives in the building trade, but again, he was not correct in his statement there. He left out of account the fact that the hours of the men have been reduced. If you take the hourly wage of the men, and compare that with their pre-War wages, it is not 68 per cent. but it is 97 per cent. increase. The average increase in the price of building materials, such as are used in building these small cottages, is to-day, as far as I can make out, about 70 per cent. more than it was before the War; and, whatever measure you take, whether you compare that with the prices of other commodities in general use, whether you compare it with the cost of living, whether you compare it with wages being paid in the building trade, I cannot think it can he said that those prices show anything in the nature of shameless profiteering. I say that because I think it is so necessary really to establish the facts.
The Committee I am proposing to set up has, its first function, constantly to
survey prices, and to keep the Government and the public informed exactly as to what the course of those prices is. It has been frequently said, and I think very truly said, that there is nothing which is so potent as public opinion in its effect upon the action of industry. Every time there is a trade dispute, public opinion as the rights or wrongs of the case immediately influences those who are engaged in it.

Mr. STEPHEN: Not a syndicate.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You will find even the most powerful syndicates and combinations are subject to this potent influence of public opinion, and I believe that that alone will have a great effect upon getting down prices to a reasonable level.

Mr. MAXTON: It did not do it during the War.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If it does not, then we shall have to consider what further steps are necessary. We are not prepared to allow this money, which the Government is going to give towards the erection of these houses, to be diverted from its proper purpose in order to make profits for rings. That we are quite determined about. As to preparing a list of what we consider fair prices, I would not like to commit myself to that course to-day. It would obviously have its dangers. If you make a mistake, and fixed the price too high, you might he doing exactly the opposite to what you wanted to do. I would not like to commit myself to such a course as that. I repeat the statement I have made, that we mean to see to-day that we are not robbed in this matter, and I think hon. Members will do well to be content with that statement and see what this Committee will do for them.

Mr. STEPHEN: I intervene in this Debate only because in the constituency I represent the housing problem is a very deplorable one and because of the lesson I learned about the uselessness of locking the stable door after the horse is stolen. It seems to me that the appointment of this Committee will only lead to a position in which, after damage has been done and after our people have been denied the houses they ought to have, only then the Government will be able to deal with the situation. I am quite confident that
the Committee the right hon. Gentleman has referred to will only be useful if it has power to interfere with the operation of the trusts. He suggested that public opinion would be sufficiently strong and would operate in so powerful a manner that these people in the trusts will be afraid to pursue their policy. He spoke somewhat bitterly, I think, about the suggestions of the hon. Member who spoke about the shameless profiteering of those people in the past. He suggested there was no shameless profiteering, but, in a few sentences before that, he himself referred to the tremendous rise in prices in the past and said that a similar rise in prices would have the effect of spoiling his scheme altogether. I suggest that it is obvious from the past that unless the Government are prepared to do something more than set up this Committee that we are going to have this housing scheme absolutely spoiled, and for those of us on these benches it will be a very sorry matter if this new housing scheme is to meet with a similar measure of failure which befell the last scheme.
It is all very well to say that some time after we have seen the operations of these trusts, after we have seen the housing scheme practically destroyed by these rings that you will consider then the course of action you will pursue—but it will mean another long spell during which practically no houses will be built. That will involve ever so much suffering among our people; it will involve loss of life among the children of the working class. Hon. Members know that housing conditions to-day are such that until a specific improvement is brought about the lives of children of the working class are being destroyed as a result of those conditions. If the housing scheme which is to he launched by the right hon. Gentleman does not meet with success because of a tremendous "drive" in prices such as happened formerly it means that the children of our class are going to suffer. We are anxious to impress this fact on the Minister in the hope that the will see to it that adequate powers are provided in connection with this scheme to deal with any system of trusts.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests that public opinion will be a sufficient factor in the matter. I am not so sure about the influence of public opinion. There was a public opinion in this country which do Oared that every facility must be given
for the production of munitions in order that the soldiers should have every chance on the battlefield. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] That public opinion, however, did not mean that the munition factories of this country produced the material at prices at which they should have produced it, and the National Factories had to he called into being to deal with the situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Trade Unions."] I do not hear any applause from hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the second part of my statement. When the nation was in peril, when there was a tremendous crisis in the fortunes of our country, then the rings were ready to seize their opportunity and we had to call into being a national organisation to deal with the situation. I suggest that to the great mass of the people concerned, to those men who were responsible for winning the War—[An HON. MEMBER: No class won the War "]—to the men of the working class, this is a crisis just as important as the great World War when the Germans were supposed to be the enemies of the human race. [HON. MEMBERS: "So they were."] I do not wish to enter into a discussion as to whether the Germans were the enemies of the human race or not, in view of the possibilities of the future when, I have no doubt, many hon. Gentlemen opposite will be telling us about their good qualities if they become allies of ours. I wish to impress upon the House that this crisis in connection with housing is a crisis of great importance to those men of the working class who fought the country's battles in the trenches and because it is such an important problem for them, I am not prepared to see another housing scheme come to futility as the last scheme did, because no provision was shown by the Ministry. Public opinion cannot do a great deal and when public opinion is manufactured in a Press subsidised in the interests of these rings, then that public opinion is one in which I have not great faith. It is the business of the Government to see that this time there is going to be no mistake made. The Minister himself has said that this tremendous drive in prices took place in the past. An hon. Member on this side called it shameless profiteering. I will not quarrel about the name, but the fact is that it was there. There was the
public opinion then, and it was not successful in stopping the drive in prices, and you have got as a Government to take the powers to see that there will he no drive again, that the scheme will not be wrecked at the beginning, and that the money will really go to provide houses for the people. I believe that, just as the former prices called into being great national factories, factories which produced the shells at a price which showed how exorbitant the former prices were, so in this crisis, which affects the lives of working men and women, it is no less necessary for the Government to call into being national factories to deal with the situation.
We have had our experience during the War, and I do not think there is any hon. Member of this House who will call in question the fact that uniforms were provided for our soldiers during the War at a price at which they could not have been provided under the ordinary operations of private enterprise, but which were possible only because of the Government control of the wool. This matter of houses is just as important as providing uniforms for soldiers. It is providing for houses for the soldiers who are now home after having fought their battles, and it is not good enough simply to tell us that some time in the future this Committee may make a Report, and tell the public that those people who drove so furiously in the matter of prices in the past are driving furiously again. We have got to get those houses this time, and we on these benches are determined that we are going to spare no effort in compelling the Government to deal with this question in a satisfactory way. I am confident that if those national factories were called into being they would smash the power of these rings, and they would smash the possibility of shameless driving by these rings, and it would be possible to save a great amount of money which might be spent in providing better houses, so that even a working man might get a parlour in his house. I was surprised to-day at. Question time at what was said about the kind of houses that were to be built, and I wondered if the Minister of Health, when he was speaking on this matter, had not, a parlour in his own house. What is good enough for him is not too good for any of my constituents in Camlachie. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] I am quite confident that the
general approval with which that statement has been met will be considered by the right hon. Gentleman and may result in those parlours being provided in connection with these housing schemes. Anyhow, we have to get the control of those people who made this rise in prices in the past. We have got to have the powers right from the beginning of this housing scheme for dealing with these people, and I believe the only satisfactory method is that of providing great national factories. There are all those factories that were used during the War for the provision of munitions. Those factories, in many cases—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he has said the same thing four times.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry, but I feel very deeply on this matter. Because of the character of the constituency I represent, because every week children in that Constituency are dying owing to the wretched housing conditions, I have been trying to impress it upon the Minister so that there may be no mistake this time. Those lives are valuable lives, and, in view of past history, and the strong representations that have been made to the Minister will surely reconsider this whole question. I would point out to him that in America there were great trusts, and the Americans tried to deal with those trusts by force of a great public opinion, but legislation was necessary to deal with the operations of the trusts in America, and I do not believe that our American brothers are so much worse, morally and spiritually, than ourselves, that legislation should be necessary in their case and not necessary in our own case. It was said by an American statesman that if you do not control the trusts, the trusts will control you; that if you do not strangle the trusts, the trusts will strangle you. If we do not control the building trust, that trust will strangle the Ministry of Health, and will also add to the misery and ill-health of many of my people. Therefore, I make my protest to-night against this feckless Committee being allowed to be set up and I would ask the Minister to give us a real Committee with powers to deal with the whole situation.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I only rise in order to put one question to the right hon.
Gentleman the Minister of Health, and that is to ask him as to his attitude with regard to the recent manifesto issued by the Federation of British Industries, which, I think, recommended that it should be laid down that local authorities in buying materials should confine themselves to materials which are produced in this country, because I do feel that if the recommendation is going to receive the countenance of the Government, it will inevitably lead to the strengthening of these great trusts to which hon. Members on my right have referred. I do think it should he taken into consideration by the Government, that in connection with all supplies of building material or any supplies needed by local authorities, there should be no restriction or recommendation of That kind laid down upon the local authorities in this country.

Mr. MAXTON: I must say that I am grievously disappointed at the policy laid down by the Minister on this important and urgent matter. His policy is to wait until the evil has developed itself before he proposes to take any steps to deal with it. On three occasions to-day we have had Ministers explaining that the general theory of the Government in dealing with any problem that contains a little difficulty is to postpone the grappling with it until it is too late seriously to get hold of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Ministers of Agriculture and Health have told us that the moment will arrive when they may usefully intervene in relation to their respective problems. This may be something, but it is not statesmanship. It is not government. It is what is called in the case of the private individual shiftlessness — refusing to shoulder your responsibility. A man in ordinary social life who does not tackle in a manly sort of way the problems of life is not regarded as of any account by his friends. If that be so in ordinary life, can the Ministry of Health expect us, who are not its friends, to approve their policy of shiftlessness?
The right hon. Gentleman told us—and I was interested in this—that the objection to publishing a standard list of prices was that the Ministry or Department might make a mistake. That is a valuable admission for us, because up to date, whatever objection we have lodged against them, we have never yet suggested that it was possible for them to make a
mistake! To make a list of prices is one of the commonplace tasks of the business man. The smallest shopkeeper does it. The shopkeeper selling sweets to small children has to calculate the prices and profits, and sell accordingly. We are asking you as business men to put down the price of the materials required in the building of a house, and the Minister expects us to accept as a good reason for not doing it the suggestion that his Department might make a mistake! Surely we have got sufficient experts in the service of the nation to be able to fix the price of bricks, cement, slates, and the various other articles that enter into the construction of a house? All of us on this side—I am saying this publicly, although, perhaps, it is injudicious—really expected that, when the present occupant of the office was appointed Minister of Health, it would mean something more effective, so far as that could be expected having regard to his associates. [Interruption.] Some of my colleagues assure me that they expected nothing, but I know that some others believed that the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman, with his family traditions and experience of one kind and another, and his intimate knowledge of a town which has its fair share of slums—we hoped that the combination of all these circumstances would lead to something really effective being clone in the matter of housing; and now he tells us he is afraid to publish a price-list. He is going to wait for the moment, and he does not know, any more than the Minister of Agriculture knows, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, when that moment will arrive, or if it will ever arrive. They are all Wilkins Micawbers waiting for something to turn up. Probably nothing will turn up, and I have the idea that they are hoping nothing will turn up, and that they will be allowed to postpone the clay of doing anything effective until, perhaps. they are swept out of office altogether, and someone else will shoulder the responsibility. This problem has been waiting in the City of Glasgow for 100 years, and presumably it will be the policy of the Government to let it wait another 100 years.

Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: We shall all be dead before then.

Mr. MAXTON: We shall. That is what you are hoping for. You are hoping that the grave will release you from your responsibilities.

Mr. FILDES: Why do not they do it themselves in Glasgow?

Mr. MAXTON: In the serious attempt we have made, we have been handicapped by regulations laid down in this House, and in the City of Glasgow we are handicapped by the fact of the, land being privately owned by a gang of robbers. That is why we come here. If we could have solved our problems in Glasgow, we need never have left it. These local problems can only be tackled if you have sufficient power behind you. We have been waiting in Glasgow for 100 years. [Interruption.] I think it is not in order for hon. Members to interject interruptions that I cannot hear. I think it is a small measure of courtesy for the House to extend to us that every interruption should be audible. The large proportion of my constituents live in houses of one and two apartments, in which they have to live their lives, in which the children are born, and the old people die. They live their lives there; they die there. [A laugh.] If you think that is a subject for jest, God help you! It is only the rules of the House that keep me from saying something more.

Mr. J. JONES: You could not raise dogs in the houses our people have to live in.

Mr. MAXTON: These people are as good people in every way as hon. Members on the other side or on this side. They are the same type of human beings as we are, many of them with greater abilities than some of us who are here, and many of them more truly Nature's gentlemen than some of us who are here; and yet they are being kept under conditions which destroy all the possibilities of a good and a happy life. You are sent here by some constituencies, God knows where, to contribute your quota to the management of this nation. You can only sit like a fool in the face of the discussion of this problem and make interruptions which only require the intelligence of a parrot. To have a problem of this sort pushed aside by the trivial excuse of the Minister is, to me, a maddening thing. It indicates to us that there is no real genuine earnestness on the other side of the House. Taking into
account all they have said about sympathy, there is no real genuine intention of tackling this great big problem which one would think was not only demanded by rational considerations, but one would think the meanest commercial considerations. You would imagine that even a petty consideration such as the desire to get a body of working men and women who would be physically and mentally fit to play their part in the commercial and industrial life of the nation would be sufficient to compel earnest effort.
We are told there is to be no earnest effort and no application of the organised intelligence of the Government until such time as the evils have arisen. With the publication of a list in advance every man who is going to build a house would know when he started out exactly what it was going to cost. That is one of the things that prevent houses being built just now by private enterprise. A man may say to himself, "I will build a house if it costs me £600, but by the time I have my plans drawn and have taken over my fen, as we do in Scotland, by the time I have, planned out what I am going to do the commercial rings, seeing that I and others are anxious to build houses, jump the prices of the commodities required and cannot possibly build at that price." If you can let them know in advance and tell the people who are anxious to build that over a certain period of time the prices will prevail and will not be allowed to be increased on any consideration you will create a feeling of security amongst the prospective builders that during the time of their operations they will not be subjected to unfair profiteering. I suggest that in the interest of your own reputations, if that is a consideration—it is not?—in the interest of the reputation of the Government of which you are a Member, might I say even in the interest of the political party to which I think you belong, and, above all, in the interests of the country, you should make a special
effort to solve this problem. One would imagine that the meanest commercial considerations, apart from humanitarian considerations, would be sufficient to compel an earnest effort by the Government to deal with the question.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS BILL [Lords].

Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [27th March] as communicates the Resolution, "That it is desirable that the Guardianship of Infants Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament" be now Considered.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ESTIMATES.

Ordered, That Mr. Trevelyan be discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates.

Ordered, That Mr. McLaren be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eleven Minutes before Twelve o'Clook,